All Forum Comments
I go along with this to the extent that, for me, the most enjoyable part of photography is taking the pictures. I'm a bit of a techno-geek and I love using the camera. This is the reason I occasionally put a roll through my K1000 or ME-Super. I long ago gave up on any idea that they produced significantly better pictures than my DSLR, but using them is fun in a different way.
Comment by Mongoose posted on End Results... at 16/04/2008 - 12:04
Most people on this forum use Silkypix for raw development. It is an excelent piece of software which I am only just starting to get to grips with. In most cases it more or less eliminates the need for Photoshop or similar, certainly to the extent that you can get away with something like GIMP (IMHO, and since GIMP is free, why not give it a try?)
In terms of storage, IMHO there is no substitute for a sensible directory structure. Software is available which can classify pictures by all manner of things and this is very helpful, but you have to ask yourself, what if that software goes down? What if Windows goes kaput and all I can recover is the directory containing my image files?
If that's one big directory which relys on software to help you find your pictures, you're stuck. If all the pics are split up into sub-directories with sensible names, it's not as easy as the software would make it but you'll get by. For this reason, I advocate using both a software solution AND setting up your file storage in a sensible manner. I have mine under year>month>event description, but whatever works for you is good.
As for backups, I have one major recommendation :
Have at least 2, on different types of media. I use DVD+R and removable HDD. My reasoning is that they have very different failure modes, which hopefully makes it unlikely that both will fail at an awkward moment and loose the same file. I recently had to restore from backup and my system was vindicated. Both backups had some corrupt files, but in no case were the same files corrupt on both such that I would actually have lost something.
I have seen grown men break down and cry when I've had to tell them that their HDD is unrecoverable. It's not pretty, don't let it happen to you.
In terms of storage, IMHO there is no substitute for a sensible directory structure. Software is available which can classify pictures by all manner of things and this is very helpful, but you have to ask yourself, what if that software goes down? What if Windows goes kaput and all I can recover is the directory containing my image files?
If that's one big directory which relys on software to help you find your pictures, you're stuck. If all the pics are split up into sub-directories with sensible names, it's not as easy as the software would make it but you'll get by. For this reason, I advocate using both a software solution AND setting up your file storage in a sensible manner. I have mine under year>month>event description, but whatever works for you is good.
As for backups, I have one major recommendation :
Have at least 2, on different types of media. I use DVD+R and removable HDD. My reasoning is that they have very different failure modes, which hopefully makes it unlikely that both will fail at an awkward moment and loose the same file. I recently had to restore from backup and my system was vindicated. Both backups had some corrupt files, but in no case were the same files corrupt on both such that I would actually have lost something.
I have seen grown men break down and cry when I've had to tell them that their HDD is unrecoverable. It's not pretty, don't let it happen to you.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Image proccessing & storeage at 15/04/2008 - 12:06
neither is out yet, but the Tamron is expected end of April so should (fingers crossed) be here soon.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Sigma/Tamron 70-200 at 15/04/2008 - 10:20
my Dad has a 55-300 on pre-order from Chris. When it arrives I intend to do some comparisons between it, my FA 80-320 and my Tamron 300 F2.8.
Should be interesting.
Should be interesting.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Pentax 75-300mm vs Tamron 70-300mm at 03/05/2008 - 23:59
one of the Nikon models has an optional slide magazine which takes 50 slides. You're looking at 500 pounds for the scanner and the same again for the magazine though.
Comment by Mongoose posted on slide adaptor for scanner at 14/04/2008 - 23:41
I briefly tried scanning peoples slides for them as a side earner while I was an undergrad. It is just about impossible to do it at a rate people will pay to a quality you can be proud of and make any money.
Unless your scanner is designed to take a slide adaptor, it is unlikely you will find one available, and if you do it is unlikely the quality will be any good. Flatbeds are designed for paper scans. They shine light up at the item and scan the reflections.
In order to scan a transparency like a slide you have to do 2 things:
1. shut off the main scanner light
2. install a second, defuse light behind the subject.
couple this with the fact that paper scans are generally done at 600dpi or less, while slides must be scanned at around 2000dpi as a bare minimum (my KM does 3200dpi, the Canon and Nikon models do 4000 or more, and that's native optical resolution, not interpolated) and you'll begin to see why slide adaptors arn't as simple as they first appear.
If the 300 are the only slides/negs you'll ever scan, take the offer of doing it for 50 quid (subject to the quality being ok). If you shoot enough film that you're likely to want more done in future, there are epson flatbeds on the market with very good features at just over 100 pounds.
Unless your scanner is designed to take a slide adaptor, it is unlikely you will find one available, and if you do it is unlikely the quality will be any good. Flatbeds are designed for paper scans. They shine light up at the item and scan the reflections.
In order to scan a transparency like a slide you have to do 2 things:
1. shut off the main scanner light
2. install a second, defuse light behind the subject.
couple this with the fact that paper scans are generally done at 600dpi or less, while slides must be scanned at around 2000dpi as a bare minimum (my KM does 3200dpi, the Canon and Nikon models do 4000 or more, and that's native optical resolution, not interpolated) and you'll begin to see why slide adaptors arn't as simple as they first appear.
If the 300 are the only slides/negs you'll ever scan, take the offer of doing it for 50 quid (subject to the quality being ok). If you shoot enough film that you're likely to want more done in future, there are epson flatbeds on the market with very good features at just over 100 pounds.
Comment by Mongoose posted on slide adaptor for scanner at 14/04/2008 - 23:39
that isn't one I've heard of. The best reasonably affordable way to scan negs and slides at home is with a dedicated 35mm scanner. The one I always used to recommend was made by Konica Minolta, but I don't think they make them anymore. Nikon and Canon also make very good ones.
Other than those three brands, I would steer clear, just about all others on the market are rebrands of the same generic unit. They have cheap fixed focus optics where the Nikon, Canon and KM ones have decent auto-focus glass.
A close second to a proper slide scanner, and overall more useful in the long run if you don't shoot a lot of film, is a flatbed with a good slide attachment. Epson make some very nice units, I'm not sure of the current range but when my parents got their current unit it was the Perfection Photo range. These are also more suited to scanning other film sizes such as 110 and 120.
Dad's epson isn't quite as good as my KM Dimage Scan Dual IV, but it is cheaper and can also be used to scan paper documents so overall it's a better buy.
Other than those three brands, I would steer clear, just about all others on the market are rebrands of the same generic unit. They have cheap fixed focus optics where the Nikon, Canon and KM ones have decent auto-focus glass.
A close second to a proper slide scanner, and overall more useful in the long run if you don't shoot a lot of film, is a flatbed with a good slide attachment. Epson make some very nice units, I'm not sure of the current range but when my parents got their current unit it was the Perfection Photo range. These are also more suited to scanning other film sizes such as 110 and 120.
Dad's epson isn't quite as good as my KM Dimage Scan Dual IV, but it is cheaper and can also be used to scan paper documents so overall it's a better buy.
Comment by Mongoose posted on slide adaptor for scanner at 14/04/2008 - 22:51
well you wont have any difficulty getting portrait subjects to smile!
it does look a little funny, but the hoverfly shot proves it gets the job done so nice work!
it does look a little funny, but the hoverfly shot proves it gets the job done so nice work!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Homebrew Flash Bracket at 14/04/2008 - 12:36
