Depends where you get them printed...

ProAM Imaging:
* Convert to colour space - use ProAM Imaging's ICM file
* Image Resize to 402 x print size, and change DPI setting to 402.
* Apply sharpening (especially if up-sized)
* Save as a JPG at 98%

Photobox:
* Convert to sRGB colour space
* Image resize to around 300 x print size. If I want 6x4, then I resize to about 1800 pixels max width.
* Save as JPG at 90 - 95%

ProAM are not a problem as you post a CD. But they want high quality JPG.
With Photobox I tend to send a relatively small JPG (under 1Mb) as I use them when I have a whole batch of 6x4s to print.

HTH
Matt

Well, in the horizontal [b]and[b/] vertical plane - but not in the front-to-back plane. The SR can even handle rotational movement... which is pretty neat.

I did see a test with the camera sitting on the bonnet of a petrol sit-on lawnmower Pretty excellent results actually.

You may just away with it at 16mm. It's been excellent for handheld shots in low light for me

Matt

NiMH batteries have quite a fast self-discharge rate. That is, they'll run out even when on the shelf. This self-discharge rate varies between battery brands. Some may be a couple of weeks... others longer.

There are some special (more expensive) NiMH cells that have very low self-discharge rates. Can't remember the link right now...

But 200 shots sounds about right.
Matt

ALL digital cameras are terrible with Alkaline AA cells.
The reason is the back LCD takes a whopping amount of current (from memory around 750mA :shock

I think you'll find that everyone round here uses, or has used, NiMH AA cells in their Pentax DSLRs. (Some use special rechargable CRV3s, and a few use Lithium CRV3)

Absolutely cannot understand why your K100D "doesn't like" NiMH...
(Sure you've got decent NiMH batteries???)
EDIT: Can you be much more specific about "doesn't like"?
Matt

Well, Rascal specify a "minimum of 360dpi" so you'll need an image that's at least 8640 x 5760 pixels.

You are better off upsizing in the RAW package (if you are able to). So a 250% linear increase should do the job (a BIG file of 63 million pixels).

If you can't do it in the RAW converter, then you can do in Photoshop. If your version of PS has "Bicubic Smoother" (definitely in PS-CS and PS-CS2) then use that and then apply some unsharp mask sharpening after.

BUT - in any case, you'll need a bit of patience and a lot of RAM 'cause it'll get hungry working on that much data. And your file size will almost certainly be near 10Mb in that case!

There's also www.photoartistry.co.uk that I've had a superb 36x24" canvas from. Sure they do acrylic too.

Matt

What printer exactly did you have in mind...?
(I meant printer in the sense of a company, rather than a piece of hardware)
Matt

It's not what you're doing wrong... it's what you're thinking

The DPI setting really shows nothing... except to help with some printing operations later on.
For example, a 6Mp image will output at 3008x2008 pixels. At 72dpi that will print at 41"x28". At 300dpi it will print at 10"x6.7"

A few (very few) printing operations require you to set this value. For example, when importing into the typesetting package InDesign the DPI setting is used to work out the size of the default image box on the page - that's where a setting of 75dpi isn't very helpful as you get an enormous box on the page .

However, 99.9% of home use will completely and utterly ignore the DPI setting It's best to think in terms of pixels rather than dpi for most work.

HTH!
Matt

Ditto Peter's comment
The SMC-FA 80-320 is a great lens (when you can find one!)

Others have used some of the better Sigma lenses (i.e. the EX series) but they're big and expensive. Have heard good things about the Sigma EX 100-300 f/4.
Others have rated the Tokina AT-X 80-400, and the Tokina AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 - but again these are hard to find second hand.

In a zoo the lighting isn't always great and the combination of a dull day plus very long lenses means that even SR is going to be pushed.

Also, blur can be a combination of the following:
* Camera shake
* Mis-focus
* Movement in the subject
* Shallow depth of field (ie smaller f-numbers)

Matt

There are two stops between f/2.8 and f/5.6 (it goes 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc)

SR should give you at least 2 stops to play with hand held.
However, if the subject is moving then SR won't help - they'll be blurred while the background is sharp

Of course, you can also increase the ISO rating to match.
For example:
Friend: f/2.8, 1/250s, ISO200
You: f/5.6, 1/60s, ISO200 (two stops slower on shutter speed)
or
You: f/5.6, 1/250s, ISO800 (two stops faster on ISO)

or:
You: f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO400 (one stop slow on Tv, one stop faster on ISO)

Matt

Not once... but twice
Now it's hoods always. They cost as much as a good filter, but they don't splinter nearly as much and protect the lens far more!

Blame Pythagoras
If you always use the centre focus and recompose you are measuring along the hypotenuse. However, the focus for the image is actually along the edge, not the hypotenuse. Consequently, if you are using a very shallow depth of field (say shooting at f/1.4), and/or shooting very close then the difference between the two sides becomes important and you'll back-focus slightly.
That's why you can select the focus point (which I do 50% of the time, BTW)

Matt