Hi Phil

Welcome to the forums. Yes, your question has been asked several times before but this is one of the most generous, helpful online communities I have found. No one will mind helping you out - as proved by the above posts.

I second Anvh's post. If you have not calibrated your screen yourself then it won't have been done. If you don't calibrate your monitor then you'll get disappointing results from any pro printing labs.

Colour Collective have a free guide to colour management, details here. I've glanced at the guide, it is probably more detailed than you need but will certainly be useful.

I use an X-Rite EyeOne Display 2 to calibrate my screen, there are plenty of other choices however. The EyeOne Match software bundled with the Display 2 is not strictly the best but it is very user friendly and was perfectly adequate when I started out. Colour Confidence has a basic comparison of several calibration solutions here.

Finally, when you've sorted the calibration also check out Pro Am Imaging for prints.

Hi Joe

Get yourself an OME-53. Worth every penny.

I managed to do the same at Heathrow last Christmas. Delivered family to on of the terminals very early in the morning. The decorations outside were fantastic in the half light with some OK architecture as background.

I had my camera and just asked the security guards if it would be OK to take some shots - promised not to take any inside - they said, "OK".

I'd only had the camera a few weeks so enthusiasm far outweighed skill, especially in low light...

Personally I would find better quality at higher ISO a useful tool. But the quality would have to be there - no point in mimicking the pixel race which arguably held down overall image quality for several years.

A dynamic range race would be good too. And a tonal gradation step race. Same caveat applies, neither should affect overall IQ.

If Smeggypants could give us more details about his workflow I'm sure we would have an answer to this question. Working with tif is pretty similar to working with psd files - in Photoshop at any rate they both offer more editing options than RAW files but at the expense (sometimes) of destructive editing.

Adobe Bridge CS4 allows multiple files to be opened in Camera Raw, they can then all be selected within Camera Raw and opened or saved as tifs. I've never worked out how to do this direct from Camera Raw, only using Bridge as a starting point.

Automator in OS X has some really good image batch processing options but I can't remember if it will work with Raw files.

Another option would be to try out some 3 third party Raw convertors like Silky Pix (I think Pentax Photo Lab is based on Silky Pix, no?) with batch conversion options.

A definite possibility - my MBP chugs sometimes when batch processing large numbers of images. If you don't want to upgrade your computer just start the batch processing before you go to bed and turn off the computer the following morning - or while you're eating dinner

Some products in the CS4 range still perform like beta software. The catalogue of complaints from pros is huge: bugs which are never patched, extortionate European pricing, poor support, activation headaches.

Adobe are in a bad way because of all of the above. Although there is no cohesive alternative to CS for pros they are quite rightly not keen to upgrade as often as they once did. If there was a credible alternative to CS I'm sure Adobe would be loosing more market share.

I'm not surprised they are trying to drum up interest in CS5 already, CS4 has been a disaster for them. I for one won't be upgrading until 6 or 7. By that time there may be alternatives.

A polariser would be useful doubling up as an ND filter and could be used with an ND as Martin suggests.

I don't want to make it even more complicated for you Peter but a couple of pointers may save you some grief. I spent ages looking for the right polarising option a few months back - forum members were very helpful

1. If you're planning on using a wide angle lens you will need a low profile filter to avoid vignetting.
2. Some ND filter are not actually neutral, they add a slight colour cast to the shot. Some warm the images and others cool it.

If you want to post details of the lens(es) you're planning to
use we'll be able to advise on low profile requirements.

I bought my filters from Camera King through their Amazon shop - cheaper than buying direct. Some people have had trouble with orders from CK but I've used them twice and been pleased with the service.

As the 645D now seems closer to reality I would suggest this counters any supposed doom and gloom. Pentax have the opportunity to carve out a real niche with the model. OK, DA lenses will not be compatible (probably) but it is a clear upgrade path for anyone concerned about how they can 'progess' with the Pentax system.

The K-x will definitely appeal to first time dslr buyers, the K-7 is a great piece of kit and a medium format model on a budget gives Pentax an offering that neither Canon or Nikon have.

Also, as Samsung appear to be moving away from dslr with their new (Nx ?) models, where are all those GX10 and GX20 owners going to look when they want to replace their current kit? Pentax of course.

I can't see much doom and gloom - spend time taking pictures rather than worrying about nothing.

Hi Earl. Welcome.

Digital has bought advantages and disadvantages to photography. It is different.

I for one did not really gel with film photography years ago. Digital was the doorway, precisely for reasons stated above. Immediate feedback and freedom to experiment - it suits my character. I think digital has enabled many to improve to a level they would not have attained with film.

Digital has though, bought some regression to the craft. Just like digital design which in some respects is much less sophosticated than letterpress printing, which in turn could never emulate the illuminated manuscripts of the medaeval scribes.

Back to photography, it seems to me there are two distinct areas where differences occur: the capability of the instrument which records images - camera - and the medium by which we present those images. Digital cameras have the benefits noted above but are less sophistcated in other respects, such as dynamic range compared to film. We can believe that with time technology will improve to the point where digital surpases the capability of film.

Concerning presentation, digital print has not yet reached the capability of older methods. Again we can hope that eventually it will, maybe with a completely new method we have no idea about yet.

If we are optimistic then the technological journey of photography will improve to a quality we have never yet seen, even if sometime there is a temporary step backwards. If we are pessimistic, technology will arrive at a baseline quality which is merely acceptable to the majority of consumers. It remains to be seen where photography will end up.

Excuse me if this is a bit rambling, it's after a few pints of Friday night Guiness - which itself has changed over the decades