Slashdot Mirror

first, 'upgrade' was referring to using drivers that reenable the disabled features of the pro card's drivers.

If a pro card is installed but features are disabled that's stupid, and I don't want to be a customer of said business. All this does is increase the cost.

secondly, unless your photography somehow involves high end opengl 3d acceleration needs, then i think you have been misled about what the 'pro' card gives you

Fact is is that while online graphics may not need much it's totally different for print. High res and deep colour depths are important for some things. If you're getting married and higher a photographer you want your photos to be as good as they can be. The same if you're an ad or commercial photographer or a fine art photographer. Pro photographers can go through tyme, hassle, and money to make sure what they see on their monitor matches what they print. An Eizo monitor, even a 24" can cost thousands of dollars. NEC and LaCie are just as expensive. Monitors with an S-IPS/H-IPS type panel can be quite expensive, but of you make your living in photography or other graphics arts you need such a monitor. Once you have a good monitor you then have to use a colorimeter like an Eye-one or Huey to calibrate the monitor. If you're also doing the printing yourself and not having a pro lab do it you also have to calibrate the printer. Going through all this you don't want a cheap graphics card driving your monitor.

Falcon

First, large format sensors are quite a bit more expensive....Second, I have a lot of hardware invested in smaller sensor sizes. I have a few full-frame lenses, but most of my lenses were bought for then-standard small format sensors.

Yea, fullframe sensors are more expensive. But if you're like me and only have lenses for 35mm film SLRs you get similar exposures using film and fullframe digital SLRs.

For me, the switch to full-frame would require investment in a more expensive body, as well as replacing a number of my favorite lenses, some of which have no equivalent in the full-frame world.

You don't have fisheye or other wide angle lenses do you? The smaller sensors on most DSLRs turn those wide angle lenses to normal lenses. If you still want wide angle you have to spend more for digital equivalents. Owning a number of lenses, it would be cheaper to get a fullframe sensor camera than replacing all your lenses, with prime lenses it would be even more expensive. If I had a fullframe Canon EOS 5D Mark II I could use the same lenses I'd use with my film based EOS with the 5D and get similar exposures.

when I bought most of my lenses, I did so with the belief that I'd have them for the rest of my life.

Same here but if I got a DSLR that wasn't fullframe I'd have to replace my lenses. And when I went out into the field I'd have to carry twice as much equipment. Yes, twice as much. I'll still shoot film even when I get a DSLR. I'll shoot it as long as film, chemicals, and the equipment is available at a reasonable price. Now the equipment lasts for years and so doesn't need to be replace often. And for developing film and making prints there are alternative processes. For instance orange juice can be used as a developer. There's a book I wish I had on alternative processing by a University of Chicago professor.

Falcon

The "megapixel wars" have ceased a long, long time ago in most of photography-related forums.

Ask someone who has a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with a 21.1 MP sensor, if they feel the same. One photographer on Photo.net says "The 5D2 is truly a remarkable camera...." Personally I don't particularly care about it's HD video capabilities. Others like the Sony Alpha A900 with a 24MP sensor.

Except for professionals, 10MP and more is something like audiophily. And definitely an overkill for a pocket camera, where you are much more likely to hit the resolution boundary of the optical system itself

First, as someone already pointed out, the executive quoted is Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department and SLRs are not pocket cameras. He could be saying that the Megapixel war is over because Olympus doesn't want to compeat with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Now as for glass of the optics, you're right the glass can be toe limiting factor. If you have poor glass it does not matter how many MPs you have.

Falcon

The "megapixel wars" have ceased a long, long time ago in most of photography-related forums.

Ask someone who has a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with a 21.1 MP sensor, if they feel the same. One photographer on Photo.net says "The 5D2 is truly a remarkable camera...." Personally I don't particularly care about it's HD video capabilities. Others like the Sony Alpha A900 with a 24MP sensor.

Except for professionals, 10MP and more is something like audiophily. And definitely an overkill for a pocket camera, where you are much more likely to hit the resolution boundary of the optical system itself

First, as someone already pointed out, the executive quoted is Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department and SLRs are not pocket cameras. He could be saying that the Megapixel war is over because Olympus doesn't want to compeat with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Now as for glass of the optics, you're right the glass can be toe limiting factor. If you have poor glass it does not matter how many MPs you have.

Falcon

they are focusing on things like dynamic range, noise reduction and color accuracy to produce results that will have a noticeable impact on the end result.

If they are more concerned about colour accuracy then I think they need to switch from CCD sensors to CMOS sensors like Foveon's X3 and capture red, green, and blue at each photosite instead of interpolating what the colour's supposed to be. I'd love for Canon to use a fullframe sensor like it, preferably with at least 16 bit colour.

Sensor density will increase; but it'll probably be at the high end pro level where you see increased density simply because off their needs and willingness to pay a premium for the sensor quality needed to give the desired results.

I'd like to get into that market and make larger posters and fine art prints. As it is now though all I have is a film SLR, what I can do is scan the film and use up ressoftware, like Genuine Fractals or Extensis.

Falcon

Indeed, a larger sensor means a larger file (by a wide margin) when shooting RAW, and a lot of pros and semi pros are almost put off by larger sensors since these are slower to work with and of course eat more disk space (and pro and semi pro will only shoot RAW). Unlike computer enthusiasts, camera enthusiasts are not looking for an excuse to buy bigger hard drives and a faster computer; their normal hardware is expensive enough as it is.

Many pros want larger sensors, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for medium format and large format digital backs. And speed doesn't depend on sensor size so much as pixel count. Many pros also shoot both raw and jpeg, or tiff. Me, I'd like to get the 21.1 MP Canon EOS 5d Mark II and if I get one I'll save both jpeg and raw. Unfortunately it doesn't save in tiff otherwise I'd also use that format. I'd also like to get a medium format, perhaps a 645, with a film back to start with but eventually a digital back.

Falcon

this

I hadn't seen it before. I looked at the site and notice it needs a net connection. I want to be able to work with photos offline. I also searched Photo.net but didn't see anything about it.

Falcon

First: "photog" sounds retarded. You don't want to sound retarded, do you?

Perhaps you'd better tell that to all of the photographers who use "photog" on Photo.net.

"Well, some people like it" is not a good fucking point to make when you're talking about how the industry works.

I've already provided links to some in the industry who do use CinePaint and other open source software. Are you saying they are all wrong?

industry standard tools--and it's what the grads want to be learning on.

Some not all, but they're not really pros because they don't use what you want them to use I guess.

Falcon

If I were going to be using nothing but Film Gimp I might consider it, but I actually use my tools in a novel (to OSS, anyway): in concert. I expect my tools to benefit my workflow, not hinder it by switching up everything and anything when I jump from (say) Photoshop to Illustrator.

I've heard, I haven't personally, that some pros do use GIMP and CinePaint in concert with other FOOS. When I mentioned that GIMP does not have 16 bits of colour channel never mind 24, one said he used GIMP for most of his work then switched to CinePaint or another program to work on deeper colours.

UI

I don't think the UI is that much a valid criticism. You may not like the UI some software has but others do. This can be seen here on /., some like Windows, some OS X, and some the various desktops of Linux. There are photogs who even like Linux.

it's pretty stupid not to teach what's actually used.

Actually I think it's stupid to teach whatever program instead of the principles. Teach the principles and a person should be able to use whatever without too much training, but when teaching a specific application even an upgrade to a new version will require more training. Depending what it is I don't think it's too difficult to switch software, or OSes. As I said in my previous post I use OS X Leopard, I upgraded from Tiger a couple of weeks ago. And I switched to Tiger From Windows, which I've used since 3.x.

Falcon

I will give you that visio and photoshop is currently better than the oss solutions

That's very generous of you. Can I have Illustrator and InDesign too, if I ask really nicely?

Actually that depends on what you're doing. I don't know about Visio but photographers use both GIMP and CinePaint for photo editing. An open source program for editing vector graphics is Inkscape while Scribus is for desktop publishing.

Falcon

I will give you that visio and photoshop is currently better than the oss solutions

That's very generous of you. Can I have Illustrator and InDesign too, if I ask really nicely?

Actually that depends on what you're doing. I don't know about Visio but photographers use both GIMP and CinePaint for photo editing. An open source program for editing vector graphics is Inkscape while Scribus is for desktop publishing.

Falcon

OSS will have a better shot at making Photoshop and the rest of the Adobe suite work on Linux than they will at getting graphics professionals to switch to a product nobody in the industry uses.

Except graphics pros and photographer do use FOOS, on Linux, OS X, and Windows. Here are some discussions on Photo.net about GIMP and some about Linux.

Falcon

OSS will have a better shot at making Photoshop and the rest of the Adobe suite work on Linux than they will at getting graphics professionals to switch to a product nobody in the industry uses.

Except graphics pros and photographer do use FOOS, on Linux, OS X, and Windows. Here are some discussions on Photo.net about GIMP and some about Linux.

Falcon

I'm also leaving aside the "GIMP blows goats and has a terrible name" angle.

While I wouldn't use GIMP for professional photo editing, I like CinePaint, there are pro photographers who do use GIMP. Check out some of the discussions about GIMP on Photo.net.

Falcon

I'm also leaving aside the "GIMP blows goats and has a terrible name" angle.

While I wouldn't use GIMP for professional photo editing, I like CinePaint, there are pro photographers who do use GIMP. Check out some of the discussions about GIMP on Photo.net.

Falcon

Also if he's so smart why is he trying to do his colour correction in ANY ambient light, instead of under a hood like the real professional photographers do.

You mean like this?

Yup, works great too. My work configuration is an Intel 17" iMac with a 20" LCD attached.

Mine is a MacBook Pro and I'm looking for another monitor, at least 24". I'd get Apple's new 24" LED backlit monitor but it costs a bit more than I'd like to pay. I've been looking lately at Doublesight's 26" DS-265 W or HP's 24" LP2475w. I want it for photography and they both had some good reviews, along with bad ones but mostly good, on photography websites like photo.net.

I was hoping for an updated Mini, I'm in the market as soon as it's out.

What I'd really like is a bigger MBP, about 2 years ago I saw a 21" laptop at BestBuy but it ran Windows, with higher resolution graphics and a bigger and faster hdd. My MBP has a 160 GB drive but I only have 25 GB free space on it.

Falcon

the iLife applications.

Oh, okay. I haven't used any iLife app yet, though I did mistakenly launch one or two. For instance iDisk. I don't what it is but there's a hot key combo that launches iDisk, I sometimes type fast and will hit the wrongs keys. A few tymes I've done that iDisk has launched.

Well, my digital camera is from 2004 but still one 4 mpx image takes 2.5 MB and since additional photos are virtually free I often take 3-20 images of the same thing just to see which one looks better.

Even with film I'm trigger happy. I can burn, er expose, a 36 exposure roll in minutes. I'm sure with a DSLR I'd shoot even more exposures. And the DSLRs I'd want to get have considerably more resolution than 4mpx. The minimum camera I want is the Canon EOS 5D which has a 12.8mpx sensor. The one I'd really love to get is the EOS-1Ds Mark III which has a 21.1mpx sensor. And that's just to start with, eventually I want to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 and a film back for it but also a digital back. And those have sensors with 40mpx or more.

The ironic thing, is that though I'm trigger happy with a camera, I'm careful when shooting a firearm. Then I make every shot count.

Falcon

Privacy in the coming age will be either a product for big companies, etc, or increasingly irrelevant as the web has shown (myspace/facebook generation).

Unfortunately too many people give up their privacy with facebook/myspace, gmail, and online data storage. They use these so they'll expect others to use them too. I haven't signed up with any of them though I may join Photo.net when I start a photo business. Otherwise I want to keep my data local, I use an external drive for backup. And I want to run my apps locally as well, and be able to take it with me so I got a laptop. the closest I may come to storing data online is if I use my Linux PC as a server and setup a VPN. Well, I also keep my email on my ISP's server.

Falcon

The panels you can buy today are very sensitive to shadows. Each cell produces only so much voltage. To get a useful voltage out of them, you have to wire them up in series. If some percentage (50%) of a row is shadowed, the panel will actually effectively shut itself down, and produce no power at all, because of the non-participating cells

That depends on the technology of the panels. Whereas the older PVs, single crystal cells, are sensitive to shade Amorphous cells aren't. With just 5% of the surface of the old tech PVs covered in shade the output can drop a lot but with amorphous cells 50% of the surface can be covered and it will still produce electricity. However single crystal cells are more efficient in full sun than amorphous cells are.

Another issue with modern panels is the fact that a classic semiconductor solar cell is useful only through a very narrow band of wavelengths. Sunlight is very broad band light. (No jokes about bitrates, thank you.) It shows up at your roof in all kinds of frequencies. The panels you can buy today ignore a large fraction of those frequencies, since they only work at what they're tuned for. However, in the process of ignoring the other frequencies, your standard cell also blocks them entirely. So even though you can manufacture semiconductor cells with different bandgaps that will absorb different sunlight frequencies, you can't stack them directly on top of each other and gain anything.

Actually you can stack the conductor so different layers capture different frequencies. A company in photography, Silicon Film which seems to have disappeared, was granted a patent on how to stack cmos layers on light sensors so a chip could capture 3 frequencies on the same pixel, at different depths.

The biggest advantage I see is at the end of the article - the MIT guys have founded a startup and intend to manufacture them.

Perhaps they can team up with NanoSolar. Larry and Serge have plenty of money, and if this can be commercialized can make a lot more.

Falcon

...in a typical medium format transparency (6x7cm) shot with a good lens (e.g. Mamiya Sekor). That's a careful assessment made by inspecting top quality drum scans. Yes, those lenses are expensive; up to $3K-4K new, but that's not just the optics - the lens integrates the leaf shutter (not focal plane, typical of consumer cameras).

For comparison, a 35mm film frame (24x36mm, iirc) carries about 15 Megapixels (there is wide consensus on this).

More here, here...

Seriously - any business worth a damn is going to have backups (the ones that don't? they kinda deserve it IMHO...)

This doesn't just affect businesses with IT departments, it also affects individuals and small businesses that can't afford IT. I've talked to a number of people who didn't understand that they needed backups, and some were otherwise intelligent.

Home users have CD/DVD-R's, external disk backups, stuff stashed across multiple machines

CD/DVD media can fail, I've bought some movies on DVD I had to return because they would not play. Some movies played once but wouldn't play again, not even in a second player. Here's a discussion on Photo.net about "gold" archival DVDs, which are specifically made to last a long tyme. Here's an article by PC World asking "Do Burned CDs Have a Short Life Span?" I doubt many people have networks at home either. External HDDs are ok if you copy your backups, store 2 or more disks in different places, then test and replace them occasionally. Actually that what some people use their iPods for, external backups.

Seriously - any business worth a damn is going to have backups (the ones that don't? they kinda deserve it IMHO...)

This doesn't just affect businesses with IT departments, it also affects individuals and small businesses that can't afford IT. I've talked to a number of people who didn't understand that they needed backups, and some were otherwise intelligent.

Home users have CD/DVD-R's, external disk backups, stuff stashed across multiple machines

CD/DVD media can fail, I've bought some movies on DVD I had to return because they would not play. Some movies played once but wouldn't play again, not even in a second player. Here's a discussion on Photo.net about "gold" archival DVDs, which are specifically made to last a long tyme. Here's an article by PC World asking "Do Burned CDs Have a Short Life Span?" I doubt many people have networks at home either. External HDDs are ok if you copy your backups, store 2 or more disks in different places, then test and replace them occasionally. Actually that what some people use their iPods for, external backups.

A couple of days ago I talked with someone in a photography store. I was looking for a recommendation for a monitor, and the person there said that several of the people there use cheap Macs and Apple monitors and get what they need to do done. I won't say that was useless but apparently you do. Maybe photography isn't demanding for you but it's more than many other things, about the only thing I can think of that's more demanding, other than servers, is video. Here's a search of Photo.net for Mac Mini". Here's what one Mac mini user says: "Hi, I have a recent Intel Mac Mini (2 GB RAM, 2 GHz Core 2 Duo), and I use PS CS3 daily to edit 16 bits TIFFs converted from raw (10 megapixels). Saving/loading big files can take a while because of the slow internal hard drive in the Mac Mini, but otherwise editing feels fast, even with several full bitmap layers." Other comments say the Mini isn't that good for photography though.

You're going to tell my friend he needs to plop $1,300 for a Mac instead of a $600 Gateway PC to do essentially the same thing?

No I'm not, see above. Also Apple sells refurbished Macs, I just checked the website and they list 2 Macs under $1000. One is a Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo for $950, $150 less than new. Another is an Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SuperDrive also for $950, this one's original price was $1500.

What I found interesting was that they also listed a MacBook Air, which came out recently, for $150 under it's retail price.

Remember, we're talking about people who would like to own a Mac but don't really need one since their PCs are doing what they need just fine.

After 10 years I switched to Macs from PCs because they gave me too many problems. I've had to replace 3 mobos and 2 hdds in the first year of owning a new PC. I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. About the only good thing about PCs is that they are easy to install new hardware and upgrade.

Maybe my experience with PCs is unusual but I've had too many problems with them and a working computer is more important to me.

A couple of days ago I talked with someone in a photography store. I was looking for a recommendation for a monitor, and the person there said that several of the people there use cheap Macs and Apple monitors and get what they need to do done. I won't say that was useless but apparently you do. Maybe photography isn't demanding for you but it's more than many other things, about the only thing I can think of that's more demanding, other than servers, is video. Here's a search of Photo.net for Mac Mini". Here's what one Mac mini user says: "Hi, I have a recent Intel Mac Mini (2 GB RAM, 2 GHz Core 2 Duo), and I use PS CS3 daily to edit 16 bits TIFFs converted from raw (10 megapixels). Saving/loading big files can take a while because of the slow internal hard drive in the Mac Mini, but otherwise editing feels fast, even with several full bitmap layers." Other comments say the Mini isn't that good for photography though.

You're going to tell my friend he needs to plop $1,300 for a Mac instead of a $600 Gateway PC to do essentially the same thing?

No I'm not, see above. Also Apple sells refurbished Macs, I just checked the website and they list 2 Macs under $1000. One is a Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo for $950, $150 less than new. Another is an Refurbished iMac 20-inch 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo SuperDrive also for $950, this one's original price was $1500.

What I found interesting was that they also listed a MacBook Air, which came out recently, for $150 under it's retail price.

Remember, we're talking about people who would like to own a Mac but don't really need one since their PCs are doing what they need just fine.

After 10 years I switched to Macs from PCs because they gave me too many problems. I've had to replace 3 mobos and 2 hdds in the first year of owning a new PC. I also had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. About the only good thing about PCs is that they are easy to install new hardware and upgrade.

Maybe my experience with PCs is unusual but I've had too many problems with them and a working computer is more important to me.

the second mistake was buying a gateway

Buying a Gateway wasn't just a mistake, it was a hugh mistake. Buying the Alpha was a mistake too, I liked it but had trouble installing software on it. I should have bought Macs instead. At least for my desktop, then a Windows laptop. I bought the Gateway though because they had just bought the Amiga and I was hoping they'd revitalize it. When I ordered it, I even had the store include a note saying I'd like to buy a new Amiga when it was released.

my university had labs full of them.... nothing but issues

When I got it I hadn't heard anything bad about Gateways though I did hear and read some good things. Before getting the Alpha every review I read said that with FX!32 almost any Windows program could be installed on it. However what I didn't read was that the software had to be 32 bit and not 16 bit.

laptops are no good because you can't calibrate the monitor, no color correction.... good call looking for the external monitor.

But you can take it with you. Then you'd have an external, large screen, monitor in the studio that was calibrated. The built in LCD with the laptop would then display the pallets and tools.

go with a lacie or an eizo, if you get an Eizo, go with the CG line, not the CE line

Thanks. Googling for "lacie OR eizo photography" the first result is from Photo.net, however I'd searched photo.net a number of tymes and couldn't find collaborated recommendations for a monitor. I did find what to look for though, values such as certain contrast ratios, brightness, and luminance.

it'll hurt buying one of those more as someone on disability.... but so will buying a decent DSLR

Right now I work with film, 35mm and I've been looking at medium format bodies. Maybe a 645. I love working in darkrooms, however I would like to get a DSLR. I've been drooling over the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but as you say that's way out of the ballpark of what I can afford. Plus in another year or two it'll be dated. I figure that if I can make money as a photographer then I can buy a DSLR but not before.

photographers are going out of business left and right

A number of articles I've read in magazines like "Photo District News", PDN, and "Digital Photo Pro" say photographers have to find work differently than how their used to finding it. Doing such things as contacting NGOs to see if they will sponsor you. Check out "Digital Photo Pro's" article "Creative Commons". While not strictly about finding work it does touch on a couple of ideas. Some say the works there you just can't use the same methods to find them. In college a number of photo students I talked with wanted to create an online portfolio, and store from which they could sell photos. Other areas are in sports and weddings. Say a family has Jr playing in the little leagues or sis is a figure skater, I don't want to stereotype but my mind's not working well now, they may hire a photographer to shoot their child then put the photos on a website as well as print a book. Wedding photographers are doing the same thing. Because I'm coming from computer tech I figure I might be able to combine the two, create the photography websites as well as sell photos. Well in a way coming from both, in high school I was involved with and took classes in both comp sci and photography and though my major was with computers I also took more classes in photography.

Well golly I guess your polaroids from 40 years ago are just magical and everyone else is just unlucky enough to see their polaroids lose color and clarity in as little as a few months. Maybe that's because you got one of the first polaroid color cameras 40 years ago, which would have been from the first 5 years of production, you know -- when they could still afford to inject the magic.

In any case, try not to miss the point of the thread: a polaroid print will not outlast a plastic xbox360 case.

(i can't imagine taking pictures outdoors being made illegal)

It looks like the pendulum is swinging that way...

I travel for work about 20 times per year, about seven days per trip. All travel is domestic. I spend 10-15 hours per day in hotel ballrooms or convention centers. The rest of the time is spent in bars and my hotel room.

One thing that needs to be addressed, what to carry all your gear? I've always used a backpack to carry my stuff (14 in. laptop, mp3 player, digital camera, disk case, PSP, assorted cables and chargers, and a couple magazines and/or paperbacks) as the messenger bags tend to get too bulky. I'm currently carrying The Crumpler Sinking Barge backpack as I've been traveling with my Canon DSLR and two or three small lenses and this bag was designed to carry the camera stuff and a laptop. The Crumpler brand is well known in the photog arena for their capacities, durability, and funny names.

I'm one of them. I'm more of a master of computer science than I am graphic design, but I do both professionally. The designers I've worked with who had the most talent were evenly split male to female, with by far the best being male. Unlike IT, the design world has been pretty well co-ed for a really long time now.

I'm coming from a computer science background, well really my major was Computer Engineering before I had an accident. But now I'm hoping to break into photography, I started with photography at the sane tyme I did with computers, and I'm wondering how well the principles of photography translate into web design. Such as the Rule of Thirds. I know it can be used generically, with the most important stuff on the top of the page and navigation or blurbs going down the left or right side. Otherwise I'm not sure such as with lines and curves.

I've never heard of extenders causing distortion of any sort, and I spent a lot of time asking around on various on-line fora before purchasing mine.

Quick search of photo.net for extenders distortion yields 187 results. From DIY Network: "The power of the extender is indicated on the lens. For example, a 1.5x will extend the magnification one and a half times.the down side of an extender is that it that you will need more light and there may be some additional distortion."

There's nothing stopping you from using full-frame lenses on a camera with a smaller sensor. It works fine. The only difference is that your images are effectively magnified (technically, pre-cropped

It not only crops but it also has more noise. Two sensors with the same resolution but one being a fullframe and the other being an APS, the fullframe sensor will have less noise. Especially for low light shots at high ISOs. An APS sensor shooting at an ISO of 3200 or even 1600 can have visible artifacts whereas the same exposure with a fullframe sensor won't. Photo.net has had some good discussions on this. Here's one, "why should I use a full frame sensor'. As far as any magnification, I have telephoto lenses so it doesn't matter to me. The largest lens I have now is only 200mm but I'd like to get an 800mm lens. With it not only could I get some good close up landscape shots but I could also use it for astrophotography. And for wide angle lenses, if you have a 20mm lens you want it to be 20mm not 30. For a fisheye it's even m or extreme.

I've been considering medium format for a while. Digital backs are really expensive.

That's why I said I'd start with a film back. Even I can't afford the $8000 for the EOS 1Ds Mark III I definitely can't afford $20,000 to $30,000 for a digital back. But give it tyme and prices will drop. When Canon released the EOS 1Ds Mark II with 16MPs the suggested price was $8000. Now the Mark III's price is the same but it has more than 21MPs and is approaching the resolution of medium format digital backs. Also if I can make money as a photographer I may be able to afford a digital back, and with one I could earn more.

Hehe. I think you're really underestimating the cost of astro here. Sure, you can get some shots with an inexpensive scope and mount, but what I've seen is that people outgrow that stuff very quickly

Gadget love, or lust. I know what you mean, I too want the latest and greatest. But you don't have to buy more expensive equipment.

custom-modified DSLR that has the IR filter

Another gadget I'd love to have. "Makezine" recently had an article on IR photography. It named some old digital cameras that worked well for IR, they didn't have IR filters so all that was needed for IR photography was some ND filters. It also said how other cameras could be modified for IR.

There's nothing stopping you from using full-frame lenses on a camera with a smaller sensor. It works fine. The only difference is that your images are effectively magnified (technically, pre-cropped

It not only crops but it also has more noise. Two sensors with the same resolution but one being a fullframe and the other being an APS, the fullframe sensor will have less noise. Especially for low light shots at high ISOs. An APS sensor shooting at an ISO of 3200 or even 1600 can have visible artifacts whereas the same exposure with a fullframe sensor won't. Photo.net has had some good discussions on this. Here's one, "why should I use a full frame sensor'. As far as any magnification, I have telephoto lenses so it doesn't matter to me. The largest lens I have now is only 200mm but I'd like to get an 800mm lens. With it not only could I get some good close up landscape shots but I could also use it for astrophotography. And for wide angle lenses, if you have a 20mm lens you want it to be 20mm not 30. For a fisheye it's even m or extreme.

I've been considering medium format for a while. Digital backs are really expensive.

That's why I said I'd start with a film back. Even I can't afford the $8000 for the EOS 1Ds Mark III I definitely can't afford $20,000 to $30,000 for a digital back. But give it tyme and prices will drop. When Canon released the EOS 1Ds Mark II with 16MPs the suggested price was $8000. Now the Mark III's price is the same but it has more than 21MPs and is approaching the resolution of medium format digital backs. Also if I can make money as a photographer I may be able to afford a digital back, and with one I could earn more.

Hehe. I think you're really underestimating the cost of astro here. Sure, you can get some shots with an inexpensive scope and mount, but what I've seen is that people outgrow that stuff very quickly

Gadget love, or lust. I know what you mean, I too want the latest and greatest. But you don't have to buy more expensive equipment.

custom-modified DSLR that has the IR filter

Another gadget I'd love to have. "Makezine" recently had an article on IR photography. It named some old digital cameras that worked well for IR, they didn't have IR filters so all that was needed for IR photography was some ND filters. It also said how other cameras could be modified for IR.

you mean like:

Space Station
Space Shuttle

or

Las Vegas

or

Lincoln Financial Field

and... yeah, it is cool that the good old USA can muster up a few of these bad boys:

F-22

So I guess we're just totally broke?

Nonsense. You ignore knife switches and huge levers.

Certainly there's some truth there, but digital photography has shown us that more accessibility to "professional" tools generally means more beautiful art being produced by "amateurs". I'm sure if you look at the average flickr submission, there are plenty of awful photographs, but if you look at the photos that others have found most interesting, or head over to photo.net and look at their Top Photos [Warning: Occasional Boobies!], you can see that there is a vast pool of outstanding photographic talent that has been unlocked by digital photography.

Certainly cheap HD video equipment will lead to a lot of high resolution crap, but I'll bet that a lot of fantastic footage will come out of it as well, along with the tools (a la photo.net) to find that fantastic footage.

f you can reduce the noise to practically zero what you're left with is whatever signal you managed to capture. Since film captures much less signal, you still won't see dim objects no matter how many exposures you stack (not to mention that it's a pain with film). On the other hand, the digital sensor captures that signal, though it's covered in noise. Average enough exposures and the noise goes down to a level where you can see the signal again.

Here's an old post on photo.net asking Digital long exposures worse then film?. Photo.net has more discusions on astrophotography and long exposure tymes.

Multiple shot star trails with a cable release are pretty frustrating because you have to get each exposure exactly the right length (otherwise your trails will pulse brighter and darker) and can't have much shutter closed time between exposures (otherwise you'll get gaps).

I saw some photos the person taking them spent hours to capture, on film. He'd set the camera up and open the shutter then go back a few hours later to close it. He also did some fantastic light painting, in valleys with almost vertical rock walls, and caverns. After setting up the camera for long exposures, he'd then take a flashlight and with it on point it at the rock walls a slowly move it around so as to paint different spots. He had some terrific shots, and it didn't take any special processing or multiple exposures, which I'm guessing is your stacking. With experience most anyone should be able to do, just keep a log of all shots taken. Which pros do anyway, what film was used, the aperture and exposure tyme, what lens was used, and so on. I write all this down when I go out shooting. Now some digital cameras can record this but so can some film cameras. Later the photos are evaluated and you can see what worked and what didn't. Go out a second tyme and use settings similar to what worked before but also try changing one or two settings. The more you practice doing this the better you'll get.

If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse

I'm definitely the target buyer for this machine, but am cautiously sitting on my hands, awaiting word from the color-management community on how it fares, and to see if Apple has finally fixed the battery and other problems that have dogged the MacBook Pro line.

Because I want to break into pro photography the color quality of the Macbook Pro's screen is of some concern for me too. However for any final editing a second monitor should be sufficient. I'm hoping to get the Macbook Pro in two or three weeks, now I want to find a good monitor as well. I've been looking at Apple's 24" but it's more than I'd like to pay now and I've heard it has some colour rendition problems. I'll also look at Viewsonic and others. Maybe I'll find one at Photo.net.

UV absorbing glass isn't really that much more expensive than similarly sized clear glass, what's expensive is glass with anti-reflective "museum" coatings. (Not the matte finishes, but actual interference-based optical coatings.) I purchase that regularly, and it is pricey, but plain old UV coatings are relatively cheap.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0 0GkGu

I never heard of this LCD dithering before. A little bit of Googling found a simple explanation of what it is, a simple test to look for it, and a detailed explanation and test.

This seems to be a very common practice on LCD screens, not just a trick used by Apple. I'm still not clear whether most LCDs use spatial or temporal dithering. It seems like temporal dithering would work very well with an LCD. They're known for their sluggish response times, so sending "80-84-80-84" at 60 Hz should result in a nice smearing into "82-82-82-82" over time.

I didn't see any dithering artifacts on my MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo). Either it doesn't dither (unlikely) or the dithering is better than my eyes can see.

We all know that screens are actually made of red, green, and blue (RGB) dots that combine to make the apparent color of each pixel. An 8-bit screen would have 256 levels of brighness for each of those subpixels, yielding 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.8 million mixed colors. But if you wanted to be really technical you could say that the screen can actually show only 256 + 256 + 256 = 768 colors; the mixed colors are an illusion. Likewise a 6-bit screen can generate only 262 thousand colors in a given pixel at a given instant, but it can simulate many more colors over time or space.

The argument depends on how many pixels the manufacturer claims to have. If they say their screen is 1024 x 768 with 16.8 million colors then we would expect to have 786,000 independently addressable pixels, each of which comprises three RGB subpixels. If in fact it takes four RGB subpixels (1-1/3 of each 6-bit subpixel to get 8 bits) to yield 16.8 million colors then they should really only claim a resolution of 768 x 576. If, however, they do the dithering temporally and the pulsation is unnoticeable then I think continuing to call the resolution 1024 x 768 is fair.

AlpineR

OED 2 fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was,
or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in
mockery of the promise and fitness of things.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0 07HIc

Your link is to a very poor, idealized graph of receptor sensitivity. A better, although still crude, one is here: http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/vis00010.htm
This does show the small extra peak of the red receptor to blue light that he mentioned.

Thank you for passing judgement and passing off your opinions as fact. You are, after all, the internationally recoginized expert on exactly why people hate Americans.

Hmm, your vehemence makes me wonder if you are, in fact, an American. Certain Americans (liberals) love to self-loathe.

And thank you for the very interesting information on electricity not being everywhere. I'm sure that is pertinent and means that you 'thoughts' apply everywhere, even places that have (gasp) electricity.

However, you seem attached (rather unhealthily) to your caffeine. You are a fuckwit, did you know there are places on this planet (the earth) where there isn't caffeine? Your addiction is why people loath Americans. Moronic prick, people in some parts of the world would see your small cup of Folgers and say "Folgers? We are still licking the place where someone spilled Sanka 3 years ago".

Of course you might molest foreign species (or subspecieis, I don't judge or care), but you should be sophisticated enough to masterbate in a sock. Since you have an unhealthy love of your coffee, why don't you jizz in your coffee mug?

You really need to relax, magnusman, and cut back on joe. Or maybe instead get a 'high colonic' or a 'really high colonic'.

As far as actual advice for the original poster, a lot depends on the type of person you are. Try short trips to get a feel for what works for you and what doesn't. Read travelogs by people who have done it, for example:
http://photo.net/samantha/
He brought a PowerBook and *nice* camera gear, but he mostly drove.

But please, don't just take off without having worked up to it, found shoes you like, and seen if bringing your portable makes sense for you.

"...seek inspiration from the creative works of others..."

Is that what they call not paying what your favorite band is asking for their latest studio production these days? If the band just wants to inspire you, they can (and do) give it away. I'd like to be inspired with free subscriptions to the complete, hard work of the thousands of people that cause SciAm, the WSJ, the NYT, and others to exist, myself. Just for inspiration, mind you. No? Fascists! The MAN is controlling me!

If a filmaker wants you seek inspiration from her creative works, rather than pay for it as entertainment, she has all sorts of ways to make that work available without DRM, and without charging her audience. More likely, though, she hopes you will be inspired, but also that you'll actually pay what she's asking - so that she can eat, pay her production team, hire talent, invest in new projects, and inspire other creative people by doing things like giving them jobs with paychecks to work in the field, etc., rather than looking for a pirated copy of what she just spent three years and all of her investors' money making.

This notion that we're no longer in the good old days when a few nerdly saints had wide-reaching internet access and liberally swapped around material (read as, "physics white papers"), and that if we were all just sweet and nice, we could go back to those days... B.S.

You've got untold hundreds of millions of consumers (a microscopic fraction of which are inspiration-seeking creators) that don't see the 'net as The Glue Of Freedom, but as The Place Where I Don't Have To Pay For Things Cuz That's What My Friends Do And What Do You Mean Blank CDs Cost Money. Those that are looking to inspire and be inspired have all sorts of venues, and can and do swap their works with each other freely (AIB/S). Inspirers/ees aren't traveling in the same circles as the leeches.

Viacom telling YouTube to take down the stuff that Viacom produces and distributes isn't the same as The Man telling Professor Wonder-Visionary that he can't post video of himself standing in a bathtub reciting his Haiku for both of his fans/disciples. You can go to wonderful web sites like photo.net and see freely shared, posted, fantastic, inspiring work (complete with technical discussions!) that's there in exactly the spirit that the Beeb's guy says is going away. But you can't just go and run off with a copy of Annie Leibovitz's new collection of work because she's decided to earn money with it if the book is reviewed well enough to earn paying customers. If no one wants to pay what she's asking, then the book won't sell - but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect it to be therefore free if you just look hard enough for someone who's scanned it and put up on a web site someplace in the name of "internet freedom."

Using the sky or a white piece of paper may be interesting, but it probably won't give you anything you can use to calibrate the rest of your photos.

A better bet for isolating the noise your camera generates is to take completely black photos, using the lens cap and some extra covering (and a dark room) to make sure absolutely no light hits the sensors. This will let you make raw images of the "dark noise" and "bias noise" that your camera generates, and subtract those images from your real photos before doing any other processing.

Details of this method can be found here: http://photo.net/learn/dark_noise/.

I have a friend who is the president of a photography club in CT. He's been arrested twice for refusing to turn over his rolls of film - with pictures of local WPA bridges & Buildings.

Unfortunately stuff like this is getting to be more and more common in the new police state of the USA. People can and do fight it but most don't want the inconvenience of being arrested so they'll just hand over their film docilely. For those who want to fight this there's a pdf handbook that can be downloaded, Legal Rights of Photographers. It goes into detail explaining what a photographer should do if approached by law enforcement. Actually I think, I don't recall for sure, I may of first heard of it here when someone else posted a link to it a few years back in another thread. It was either here or Photo.net.

At graflex.org we have used Microtek and Epson flat scanners. You do not need a drum scanner for your task.
You might try posting your question at there or on photo.net, or just reading the existing postings there.

And yes, you can still get 4x5 film. Try it out sometime!

The infrared dust removal technique really works.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0 0BMk6&tag=

If you have a lot of 4x5's check out some of the large format photography pages (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/). 4x5 and larger photography is still something that people are activily doing, so they have looked at these issues before. http://www.photo.net/ is also a good place to look