BlenheimBoy

Through my work, I visit a lot of homes in the hills and southern Fleurieu region. I'll keep my eyes open. Lets hope the little guy finds his family and is safe and well until then. His owners must be heart broken, I know I would be. Michael

+1 Here's one we had on a window at work a few months back: Over a 12 hour period, she hoisted this poor lil guy up over 1 metre - from on a window sill (where she must have caught him), to up under the (outside) blind hood. Normal Victoria... lol, that's funny.

That's a classic

One from a while ago... Dancing with the other lady in my life, the beautiful Renae

For an adult with no skills, maybe. I say aim high and be prepared to negotiate down. They are obviously aware of your talent and want you on board. But a few things, what guarantee is there that 'full time' is actually full time? How would it be perceived if you were to take on your own clients in your own time if your 'employed' work slows down? Might it be better to be a contractor rather than an employee?

Persephone, Orton won't suit all subjects. I've found it most effective on images filled with fine detail - things like animal fur, grasses, leaves - images with lots of repetitive lines or textures. Especially where those 'lines & textures' do not form part of the image's primary focus. (such as the background) There's a recent dol thread here: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=175514 As with any post process effect, you can turn it up as loud (or not) as best suits the particular image. Here's a few shots my wife has taken, with a fairly mild Orton applied Giraffe (on dol) - (on Flickr) Mothers Day Cav (on dol) - (on Flickr)

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...=152772&hl=

That's why I asked for a *crop* at 100% - not the *entire* full res shot. ETA: example:

Jenny, would you post a 100% crop from one of these shots please. Resizing to 350px long (as you've done) shows me nothing of the cameras low noise performance.

This actually makes me laugh... she's using a consumer camera and a cheap'ish consumer lens to shoot a wedding - and she's dis'ing your lens? all I can say is PFT! You should have replied with "So you're shooting a wedding with *NO* back-up camera and a consumer lens... Gees!" and then walked off... ETA:

Looks great, I love the light on his ear. ...and besides... *everyone* knows there's no such thing as a bad photo of a Cavalier....

Congrats on the D50, they're a great little camera. In that particular instance, I'd add fill flash and decrease the exposure. Generally, I shoot this kind of stuff in aperture priority with my flash (SB600) in iTTL and use an appropriate level of flash compensation to lift the shadows. I always found the D50 to be a little prone to hot spotting. I know a lot of people had their exposure comp permanently set to -0.3 or -0.7 in an attempt to avoid blow outs. I tried that too but didn't really like the results. These days I shoot with a Fuji S5 set to 400% dynamic range and the whole white/overexposed thing is not usually an issue and the difference is **very** noticeable in comparison to the Nikon sensors. Hope that's of some help. Michael

Try this one - there always seems to be helpful friendly people there... or: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/ http://www.photoforum.com.au/index.php also, Flickr has 'groups' that cover just about everything - might be something there. Michael

- following on from my previous comment - Here's a link to the Virgin Mobile advert I referred to: http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ The photograph was uploaded to Flickr with a CC (Creative Commons) licence. (which makes it fair game, but V still should have had a model release) Link to SMH story It really is just a 'snap-shot' type of photo, which highlights the fact that a photo need not be of outstanding quality or content for it to be ripped off. Regards, Michael

Jules and I have both been through varying degrees of this (Copyright infringement) I came across this browser plug-in few weeks back. (and immediately found more of our images used without permission) It's def worth having - even if only for curiosity value. http://tineye.com/plugin Here's some more examples of unauthorised use (from Flickr): A photograph I took (Bollywood producer & actor) ...and this is what happened after uploading to Flickr: it turned up : here, here here here here here and here oh someone else pinched it and put it on imageshack as well... Some of you might know about the problems my wife (JulesLuvsCavs) had with a photo of our Joey, she removed it from Flickr in the end. Well, it's still out there (other than as my avatar...) Another of my shots 5th one down is mine. It's also here Here's my original There was also a case a while back, where an image (of a girl texting) sourced from Flickr was used in an advert for a mobile phone carrier (V) The ad was 'featured' on the side of a bus shelter (in Adelaide). No photographer consent, no model release and no payment for it's use. As I understand it, it was the girls family who saw the ad and it was subsequently removed... sorry I can't find the link/info on it atm. Regards, Michael

x 2 Yes, it's a nice lens. (My) Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di-II LD (Flickr Set)

Thanks for everyones input. I've been meaning to make a list of vet clinics and contact numbers to carry around in the car with us - Just in case. I've often wondered who we'd contact if we got into a situation when away from home with our little guys. I could just tear a page from the phone book I guess, but the recommendations here are really great!

Krislin, I understood that perfectly. As has been suggested, lenses will hunt for focus in low light. Maybe my point wasn't clear. You stated: The inference (I get) from your reply is that you feel you messed up the shot due to your (manual) focusing. The 'unsharpness' in your shot is not due to focus error, in fact I'd suggest that you've nailed the focus perfectly. Your shot is the way it is due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed. Michael

actually this pic was manually focussed by me so it looks like even I couldn't get it exactly right. The exif for that shot says 1/6 sec exposure - so my guess is that the 'unsharpness' is camera shake. ETA: Exif Sub IFD * Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/6 second = 0.16667 second * Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 56/10 = F5.6 * ISO Speed Ratings = 1600 * Exif Version = 0221 * Original Date/Time = 2008:11:27 17:52:40 * Digitization Date/Time = 2008:11:27 17:52:40 * Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr * Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 169408/65536 Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/6 second * Aperture Value (APEX) = 325770/65536 Aperture = F5.6 * Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/3 = 0 * Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode * Focal Length = 55/1 mm = 55 mm

I'd previously never been a big fan of Tamron stuff - I owned an old 80-200 & also a 200-400, back in the film days. Neither of those were great performers. Recently, I bought a Fuji S5Pro and there was a "kit" option to get it along with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 - it added about $300 to the body only price. I believe the retail price for this lens is around $600 (+/- $100 depending on where you shop) I'm really (*really*) happy I took up the option with this lens - obviously, a part of my happiness is due to the fact it came at a great price with the body! - but it is a great lens, nice and sharp across it's range and a great option if you're looking for a short zoom. (it's a constant 2.8 btw) I have a Flickr set of shots taken with this lens here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelbuddle...57607852787867/ All of those shots should be viewable to you at full res (4256 x 2848) and exif is intact for zoom/aperture info. I would definitely buy this lens again, it's on my camera the majority of the time these days. Perhaps my only gripe is that it's occasionally too short - but there will never be one lens that fits all situations. Michael.

helen, those photos are just soo cute! The sacrificial shoe was surely a small price to pay for such great images! A while ago I took this shot using a couple of off camera flash units. It was posted on my Flick page A friend who also has Cavs, asked about the (lighting) setup - I posted the following shot (and I think this says it all about what *our* guys are like to photograph...) So I guess my pet photography will remain mediocre as my guys are just far too easy... :p ETA, oh, if Joey looks rather alarmed in the first shot... it's because he was watching 'RSPCA Animal Rescue' - I too, often have that same look on my face when I watch it...

Hi Bailey9, congrats on the Olympus! I don't have any recommendations on a book for you, but I'd be searching the net for photography tutorials or joining one of the many photography forums - either a general digital group or an Olympus specific one (since the Olympus 'four thirds' system is quite unique) http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus_e500/discuss/ http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=olympus+e http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1022 I'm sure there are many more - those sites are just a few that I hang out in Have a search on You Tube for Photography tutorials - some I've seen there are quite good. Also, ask questions in groups like this one - I haven't been here long, but it's obvious to me from the discussions and photographs I see posted, that there's plenty of amazingly talented guys & girls here that I'm sure would love to help you out. Other than that, shoot, shoot, shoot, become familiar with your camera & have fun Michael.

... Another question that you wonderful DOL'ers might be able to help me with. I have the settings on the camera to take the shots at maximum quality however I notice if I look at the properties when the photos are saved on my computer they are saving at much less than the 10mp camera that I have. Some are saving at less than half. Is this because they are JPEG? When I do sucessfully fluke a good shot to have enlarged how do I know that the photo will able to be enlarged without going grainy? I want to enlarge a photo and have it framed as a gift. Any suggestions? Hi polomum, congrats on the D80!! Tahna, the MP (mega-pixel) count of your camera and the image file size (mega-bytes) are two separate things. eg: polomum's Nikon D80 is a 10 megapixel camera. At it's maximum resolution setting, it will produce an image 3872 pixels by 2592 pixels 3872 x 2592 = 10,036,224 pixels or a little over 10 million (or Mega) pixels. Recorded as a JPG, I'd expect the file size to be 4 - 5 MB (MegaBytes) From a decent 10MP image you should be able to get quite a large print - probably larger than you're intending to give away... This link may help you with print sizes http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

For me it depends on the individual photograph. Sometimes a lens flare or a series of flares across the frame can really add to the "ambience" (for want of a better term) of the shot - other times a flare is just plain distracting.

Ditto. A UV / skylight filter offers little to the digital photographer other than lens protection.