I'll start by saying that I don't know a ton about printing. What I do know is that it depends on a few things: What will you be printing? Color? B&Ws? A mix? What size(s) will be you printing? Do you generally just want to print a bunch of 4x6s of stuff you've taken photos of? For just regular stuff like that, I sometimes get stuff printed at Costco at 17 cents per 4x6. It would take 3000 prints at this cost to make up for say, a $500 printer. This does not include the cost of ink and photo paper.

Yea mostly the standard sized photos which i guess is 4x6. I imagine doing color and some B/W. Also perhaps some panoramic pictures as my camera has a nice feature for that. But the vast majority will be normal sized. Sounds like i don't really need a printer.

I'm getting a replacement 40D. But if that one's a dud, I'm never touching a 40D again. I'll either stick with my 350D or switch to Nikon. Two chances is more than enough. I've never used any Nikon in my life, so I might not switch just because I'm used to Canon's ergonomics.

But switching does address quality control. If Canon keeps making dud bodies, and people switch because of that, then maybe Canon will better test cameras.

And this ERR 99 problem seems to be prevalent. One guy on another message board is on his fifth 40D!

Printers are very handy because you don't have to wait. But it isn't an absolute necessity. And when making bulk prints, I usually go to Costco anyway. E.g., for my Xmas card photos, it's easier to email the photo to Costco for 50 prints than it is for me to print that many.

I think printers are better if you really want control over how your pictures appear, want to experiment and are generally fairly serious. I am able to print at Costco using their printer profiles and color correcting on my profiled monitor at home. I haven't seen a need to spend money on a printer yet.

These two are amazing. Do you mind if I ask what if any digital touching up you did? I've discovered some of the fun settings in Picassa and am conflicted about how far to go with it sometimes.

Here are 5 examples of what I'm talking about with some pics I took in Ireland.

My Dad framed the first pic, and seemed a little disappointed when I told him I fudged with it to get that sky effect (he's not very technical). I tried to explain to him that it's not that different than what film photographers used to do (and still do) with all kinds of funky filter attachments.

The second one it's so obvious that it's no big deal.

The third one people ask me a lot if the colors were really like that. They weren't. So this one falls into that weird area.

Then the 4th one I just nudged the Ireland green a little greener. I was careful to try to be consistent and nudge it a bit in all my pics. Is that ok, frowned upon?

And the 5th one I went kind of surreal again. Something about the cows.

Here's the rest of my Ireland pics btw: http://synergizethis.com/Ireland2007/index.html I definitely went a little crazy with Picassa on a lot of these. But it was fun.

Thank you. They both spent a reasonable amount of time in photoshop to look like they do. I play with them until they look cool, no specific processes or tutorials I can call out. Unfortunately I'm away for 3 mo. on business so I don't have my files but I'll definitely contribute more when I can. Great thread.

Conflicted? Like in the sense that manipulating them damages the purity of the photo?

i have no idea about photography but i was ****ing around with a photographer friends camera at a daft punk concert and took this, i think its pretty cool

Frowned upon? Ohhh, I don't know. I think that anyone who says that *this* is wrong or *that* is wrong in ART is a ******. While one might not prefer it, it's fine. It's like preferring Pointillism over Impressionism. If you were a photojournalist, then it would be a whole different story. There have been PJs that have gotten in trouble over editing out a really tiny, irrelevent portion of a photo.

If you aren't a photojournalist or you're not being paid to take photos under someone's general direction or supervision, I say do what you want.

Well I do think there's some kind of a line if people think they are looking at a basically realistic photo, or an obviously enhanced photo. If you cross that line without letting them know, it's a weird area to me.

Took some photos on an empty UW campus today. Here are a couple:

just back from san diego, went to the zoo this morning and drove home...more later

If you have access, try again around 30-40 minutes before sundown to turn the window light from blown out to a nice blue.

a few more i took on my trip...

Agreed. This was one of those spontaneous handheld shots. If i were to plan out this shot, I would definitely go at the magic hour and bring a tripod with a remote shutter release. Ideally, I'd get better exposure on the glass and a larger depth of field so that the foreground is sharper.

Speaking of spontaneous shots, I took these today while on a walk:

Cool use of natural light (and shade)!

Thanks! That is one my favorites from the trip.

These are posted in OOT also, but just incase it gets deleted


These are from an event I photographed tonight with my wife that she will write a story on for Mondays paper.

By-tor

your getting paid for these right? and your not signing some ****ty Work For Hire agreement right?

If they wouldn't mind would the people who took some of these wonderful photos post the cameras they used to take them. Also, i assume photoshop, but any other programs they used to edit them. Thanks.

What information are you hoping to gain?

I photographed some duckies on the UW campus:

no pay, no agreements. my wife is required to submit pictures with her articles, so my work is donated to her.

eventually, i will parlay it into either a press-pass or individual credentials for larger events.

strictly hobby for now though

I was staying at my Mom's for Xmas. I was looking for an iron and came across a heavy nylon gym bag. Curious, I opened it up. And found my Dad's old camera equipment. He passed away 16 years ago and I haven't seen his camera since then. But there it was, a Nikon FG (circa 1982-84) and a Pentax Spotmatic (circa mid 1960s). Several lenses for the Pentax, but only one for the Nikon. They both seem to operate well, though I haven't had a chance to develop the film yet.

The Nikon is one of the first cameras Nikon made from their move from fully manual cameras to ones with programmed autoexposure. But it's one of their entry-level cameras, so it's not very well regarded. I actually haven't even tried the program mode, using it in manual mode, using the camera's meter. (I had to replace the camera's battery).

The Pentax is fully mechanical. It can take a battery for a meter, but I have no idea what size. So I was using it in sunny 16 mode the other day. Supposedly a real classic.

Both are a huge change from my Digital Rebel XT. Very hefty cameras, sturdily built. Huge viewfinders with focus aids make manual focus a breeze compared to the Canon.

I basically gave up on film after getting my first digital camera. So I will most likely rarely use these cameras. But still cool to have.