kja

It's so beautiful down there...too cold for my blood though Pretty town! Now this is getting fun - I love photos

Now that's nailing the focus I'm not sure what shooting jpeg or RAW has to do with the image, but I love the focus! Beach is our usual dog walkin' place, just down the road!

LOL I shoot jpeg lots of the time

LOL the best threads are the ones that go well beyond the original post and bring in all sorts of ideas. I, for one, am really enjoying the time people are taking to contribute - I love to learn and try new ideas!

This is a really good thread! A good example of getting your in-camera settings dialed in. You're still using what the manufacturer gives you instead of doing it yourself on your computer, but if it improves your workflow then that's a perfect example of how to use jpeg to good advantage! It's not a matter of jpegs not being good, it's a matter of having control of your images. RAW is suited to anyone who wants to use it It's all a matter of using the right tool for the job. Most of the sports shooters I know use RAW the majority of the time; many of them will shoot in RAW and jpeg together, too. I don't think the type of photography you do is really much of a determining factor for choosing a format. Aren't you using a dslr? If so, using RAW shouldn't slow you down in normal shooting. Maybe in burst mode you can shoot more frames before the buffer fills, but that wouldn't be the usual, would it? I haven't noticed overfilling my buffer while shooting BIF and RAW but I don't do it all of the time either! If you are using a compact, the RAW write times can be a real bear...my old, trusty, much loved Olympus 5050 was pretty slow in RAW LOL

DisneyChrome Beautiful stuff! Will you post your photos? (what a pain in the butt having to scan slides, but we'd still like to see!) If you can find it, Kodak used to make a 25 that was outstanding for colours like reds, oranges, purples...and it wasn't even slide! But YOWZA did the colours leap off the page. Great for macro and those scenic shots with lots of bright colours. At 25 you need a whole truckload of light, though!

Just out of curiosity, assuming that using these types of filters is "OK" to those who abhor using software to achieve similar results...why does it matter if you use filters/techniques before shooting or after if your vision is the same? Why does the order we do something matter?

Excellent point! The only way to get better images is to go out and shoot! Try stuff. Who cares if it doesn't work - as long as you figure out what went wrong and work from that next time your images will improve! And being able to see things right away is such a time saver - you'll be fast tracking so much your head will spin when you look back in just a month's time If you have a RAW converter program switch over. At least just try it for some things. It's not scary. It's not particularly more time consuming. The camera and shooting the image works exactly the same way. My biggest regret when I moved to a system that allowed RAW was waiting "to get better" before I switched. I have several images I love and that are OK but had I shot in RAW I would be able to better white balance them and tweak my shadows to make them into POW shots. Exposure and composition are fine...but those little things the camera chose for me just took the images down a notch. Now, if I was a better photoshopper maybe I could tweak them, but I'm not and a lot of the data is gone... You can always shoot both at the same time or switch back and forth

This is such a circular discussion, but I'll jump in again because I feel it's something that we all deal with and think about so it's important to be able to have discussions and develop our own sense of what pleases us.... Yes, you need to get the exposure and composition you want to work with in camera. Those who use RAW as a crutch aren't using its full potential - but it will save your butt if you do goof or if things too fast for jpeg's massive data toss out. You still need to get your exposures as close to correct as you can - lazy photos are easily recognized most of the time! I'm not sure where you're seeing all this "don't have to get it right with RAW" stuff, but it's really misleading wherever it is...getting it right is the goal no matter what you shoot. Using RAW is a little like using film instead of slide...you have a tad more leeway for what is "right" when it comes to film as it is more tolerant than slide emulsion is, but you still can't fiubar. And like you said, who the heck wants to live in front of the computer more than most of our jobs have us do now?? Not me, that's for sure. In a properly exposed jpeg and a properly exposed RAW file, the RAW file will have far more data (that's why it's a bigger file). This means your highlights and shadows especially will have more detail, good things. Jpeg isn't bad and there are plenty of reasons to shoot jpeg, of course, and RAW isn't magical or mandatory. It's just another tool. I post process every photo I take: 1 - I cull anything I don't like or didin't work 2 - I (usually) rate the rest of the stuff 3 - I tweak whatever needs tweaking on images I am going to use. As I shoot RAW, this usually means a little contrast and white balance, two of the biggies that are done in camera when you shoot jpeg. A series of images can be batched or synched and takes about three seconds. 4 - I resize for output...often the web. Again, I have an action that does this so it takes no time. I'd guess most people's photography workflow is similar. It would be very very rare to spend more than a minute or two on an image...even one with vignette, cropping, extra loving and the like. Shooting in jpeg simply moves the decisions from you to the little guys sitting in their dark basements writing the code for jpeg and away from your computer. You are doing the same thing, just at a different stage and with less control. You're still using post processing. The image is not "pure" It never was, even with film. This is a great definition. Post processing is the development period - but it's also the choice period. We used to choose the film/slide we used...remember DisneyChrome (Fuji Velvia)?! Definitely not suitable for every application but when you wanted colour and were shooting slides, it was the only choice. And Ilford's yummy choices for making awesome black & whites...I remember discovering that grain could be oh so sexy with Ilford... Exactly. Have the vision, use the tools to get there. Ansel Adams would be proud Acutally, I don't really think that there are two definitive camps...everyone post processes with digital whether they admit it or understand it or not. Some do more, some do less. Some choose after shooting, some choose before/while shooting. Oh, and who cares? As long as you are being ethical about your work and not submitting photojournalism that you've created in your home Shoot for yourself first. The biggest issue I see most people having is blatant manipulating and then passing it off as a "real scene": adding elements (there was only one penguin and now there are two with their heads together - have you seen that cutie card?), subtracting elements (one penguin had his flipper in front of the belly of an otherwise perfect pose so it is removed), the sky was grey but now it's a brilliant sunset. Everyone has to decide how much manipulation is acceptable on an image - and often that line will move depending on the target audience, the intentions of the photo and many other factors. There's no right or wrong. Personally I feel trying to pass off an image where elements are added goes beyond the photograph. But then there are probably exceptions to that, too! Yes, there is a certain amount. Only you can decide what is acceptable to you and which tools are acceptable. Many competitions, for instance, allow for white balance, contrast and cropping. Others don't allow cropping. Some allow anything at all except adding elements. Some allow bits and pieces in between. Even the people who run these things can't decide what's acceptable. Digital is still relatively new technology and as with every change, we the users have to feel our way and create new paths. As long as you keep thinking of things as "cheating", your photography will suffer, imho. You'll be so fixated on NOT cheating that you're bound to fluff up Just relax, concentrate on getting the very best image you can out of your camera each and every time then work from there. Experiment in post a little bit and see what works for you and what doesn't. See how much you feel comfortable doing for various outputs (friends, family, professional, web, big prints, newspapers, magazines, brochuers, whatever you like to do) and stick with that...it will likely evolve and oscillate as you go along. I know every photographer pro and keen buff I know has seen this happen...different stages of discovering new things so really dressing up for the opera and then stages of cleaning up for a nice casual night out LOL To add saturation in camera, look at adding an extra light source. I shoot outside in the bright sunlight a lot and being able to use a fill flash lets me up my shutter seriously to get those awesome blue skies but keep my subject well balanced. I may have missed it, but are you shooting jpeg or RAW? If you are shooting jpeg, check your camera functions for a saturation, contrast etc adjustment. Play around with that until you are getting results that you like. Be aware that when you use the one in camera you'll likely need to know how to change it as sometimes what looks incredible for things like scenic shots isn't terribly flattering to people's faces. If you are shooting RAW, you can do this too - your camera will apply your presets to the jpeg image that you see on your lcd (you don't see your RAW image there, that's why RAWs look different - assuming your settings are neutral in your RAW converter - on your computer screen). To see those settings on your computer screen when you import your RAW file, simply change your RAW converter's default setting (each one has a different way to do this, but it's pretty easy). Food for thought...when we shoot film we take it to a lab. That lab chooses the chemicals, the papers, the developing time and in the new you beaut processing machines at the mini-lab they also mess with colours...red, blue, yellow and black. Ask to see if they have +/- chart. It's a chart with a single exposure processed to neutral and then all of the combinations around it (+1R, 0B, 0Y, 0B etc). It's really cool and is a great demonstration of things that go on behind the scenes in an image that has seen no post processing I'm sorry but I don't get this attitude. Why would you let the camera and little geek decide for you? And why is this OK or better than doing it on the computer? It is applying exactly the same things you would do yourself in a software program but taking all of the control away from you?

Nailing exposure and then post processing. Lightroom would be able to handle most of that pretty easily without even having to head into Photoshop. Think of post processing as kind of the film days with psychic powers...with film/slides, you chose your brand, your type, your speed before you loaded your camera. Then you chose any filters etc that you needed. Then you had to get the shot. Then you chose your chemicals, your paper, your developing settings, your dodging, your burning etc. With digital (shooting RAW) almost all of the choices you made are now made after the shot (other than getting the shot, that's still the same ) and you can see them as you go - instead of having to do the trial and error with wait time! RAW untouched is like shooting film/slides and then leaving it in the canister - your images are realising their full potential. You can also do editing with jpegs, so if you are using a compact, don't fret! With compacts that only have jpeg as an option also get in there and try out the different settings your camera has. They can make an enormous difference. Take some shots, get into LR or PS or your choice of software and really move the sliders around and get way crazy. This is a great way to see what each option does. Go extreme so you really get a feel for how different things make stuff happen and how combinations go together. Then you can develop to taste.

Finally got in touch with the vet. Puppy did not have the 12 month shot...she had a shot that she is to have at 3 months and then another at 6 months with the recommendation of one a year for life afterwards. I will make sure to let them know AGAIN that I do not want to have the 12 month shot...I see no reason to risk it despite our best friends' Blue Heeler having this yearly shot with no problems. Thank you all for jumping in with advice and ideas

That's great to know - I always check out Aussie prices and having a recommendation is a good thing!

The 85 is a classic portrait lens. It's biggest draw is being able to shoot wide open for those creamy backgrounds that make the main subject really pop. Of course, you can use it for far more than portraits, but this is what the "pros" like it for and what gets the most press. There are two versions - the 1.8 as above which is a delight for $340 new and the serious 85L 1.2 for $1700+...this is one of those lenses that is on a lot of wish lists, but where the much cheaper version performs very admirably, too. The 50mm has the same thing - the Nifty Fifty for about $70ish is 1.8 and is a great bit of glass for portraits and the like. It's also a great way to get into low light capabilities for virtually nothing...then you can move to the more robust 1.4 for about $350ish or the serious 1.2 for over a grand BTW - all prices are in USD coz I almost never buy camera gear here with the crazy prices! Your 70-300 may be a better choice for dogs in action as you can cover a wider area. If you are going to be able to control your distance from your subject, then a prime is a very good way to go.

Helen - looks like you and the 85 are getting along fabulously! Gorgeous shots Congrats on the new lenses Hesa...very nice, both of them. I have the 100-400 but it's been sitting forlornly on my shelf since I bought it...just haven't had much time to work with it over the past couple of months. Beautiful results, though! I think it's a good way to drop $1400

There are no other vets OK, if we drive more than eight hours, but otherwise this is the vet. We have a public holiday here today but I will be ringing them again tomorrow to find out what's what and won't hang up til I know. I have a feeling she did give her the yearly heartworm and if so, there's nothing to be done about it now so I am not panicking or freaking out about it. I will just be extremely clear that isn't what we want to do in future. I do remember telling her that I didn't know about the yearly one and would rather stick to what we do for our other girl. But now that some time has passed I see how totally rushed and stressed I felt in there...it's very much not like me to not know what exactly is going on! Thanks for your advice - I'll be looking into things and making some decisions!

ooo! The 85 1.8 is so dreamy! You'll love it :rolleyes: One day I'll add it to my line up, but right now it wouldn't get enough use so it's on the back burner. But it's one of those lenses that make you fall in love pretty quickly! I've got both primes and zooms and both types get workouts - just depends on what I'm shooting.

I was going to get online and order some worming stuff but now I'm lost. What to use? When I took our pup in for her 12 week shot the vet rattled on and on about about 100 things and gave her some sort of a shot - I believe it was for heartworm. She wouldn't take the time to actually talk to me instead of at me and I have no clear clue what actually happened. Trying to get answers/records is a PITA - they are only here once every two weeks and contacting them by phone gets answers like "the vet will talk to you at your appointment...on 12th March!" We're having to wait an extra two weeks to get Tilly's last C5 because we didn't know the vet was only going to come once every two weeks and before the change their office would call and remind us to make a new appointment for things...not any more and no new appointment was made for her at the 12 week consultation so when I rang, we found out we'd missed them by a day! I don't want to get the wrong stuff. I do want to buy from the net as our Vet is crazy expensive.

LOL happy to help spend money :rolleyes: And I could talk about photography for ages - it's just so much fun and there's always something new to try!!

I love the Sigma 18-200 and it sounds like a real contender for your needs. That range is just so flexible! Spring for the OS one - a little more money and a little heavier, but really worth it. You'll even be able to do some nice sunset shots :D $410 US at Sigma4Less. Shipping looks to be about another $60 - the US Post Office has recently changed their rates and it kinda sucks, but it's usually still way better than paying for lenses in Australia

Ah, I didn't see she was getting the non-IS. Why not have that delivered? It's well within the maximum allowed and BH do a fabulous job of getting things out in good time. Their shipping is very reasonable, imho, and you'll still come out ahead in total cost AND you'll have it two months sooner :rolleyes: I'd probably spend the extra couple of hundred for the 2.8 Sigma (looks like about $799 vs $599), myself, but then again - I love spending other people's money BTW- Sigma4Less has both of these lenses for less than BH and their shipping is usually even better than BHs. I use Sigma4Less a lot and have nothing but positive things to report.

Have you checked out Sigma's 70-200 2.8? It's about $300 cheaper (which means you can have it delivered to Australia :rolleyes: ) and it's a total gem. The better aperture is a nice plus. I have a friend shoots weddings, sporting events and music who has this and the Canon 70-200IS 2.8 and he finds himself grabbing the Sigma unless he's shooting in extremely low light. His images are outstanding and he loves the IQ. Says it's a fast focus, too.

Lightroom does this, too...it will take your LR adjustments into Photoshop, then return the image to LR so you can tweak more there if you need to. Works pretty slick. The new Bridge (CS3) seems to play nicer with LR, too - my bud just loaded CS3 and says that his keywords etc in Bridge transfer to LR and this wasn't happening very consistently with CS2's Bridge. Do you use the WB eye dropper tool? If you have the navigator window open in the upper left in Lightroom and use the eyedropper tool you can see the wb changes in the navigator window as you move the eye dropper over the original image in the main window. It's great, I find especially for subtle changes, because it's so easy to see the differences a little change makes without having to do and undo stuff, which I find time consuming.

I have and love Lightroom. I haven't even opened the new Bridge for Photoshop CS3 (nor Bridge for CS2 in months and months). You can download a free trial at adobe.com It is definitely in the top five things I've spent money on. Almost all of my editing etc is done in LR - I only open CS3 to add borders, watermarks etc or to do something funky. Lightroom has cut my editing time down drastically. I only shoot RAW (not true, actually, I shoot jpegs with my canon compacts, but everything still goes through LR). BTW - "editing" for me includes, keywording, filtering, rating, organizing etc...

That's a huge task you've chosen LOL You might be better off choosing something a little less ambitious than this. It can be done but it's going to be a huge project, I'd think. I always think of cloning and healing as minor changes only or it just gets too time consuming for my tastes! I'll be interested to see what the more prolific photoshoppers have to say on this one. Did you learn about the patch tool? I love this tool and it works well for a variety of things. Not really for this one, but I wanted to mention is as I didn't know about it until a friend told me!

Thank you. Unfortunately, we are pretty remote and that service isn't readily available here. Yes, we have our girl Dora and our new girl MatildaLily - there's a long thread with photos in the Photo area though most of the photos are down at the moment coz I exceeded photobucket's free bandwidth allotment LOL I also blog at www.krisitnsnews.blogspot.com with lots of stuff on them. Thanks for the link, it looks like it has some options and I will check some of them out. Appreciate the fast responses.