"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:20:28 GMT, "RG" wrote:

As far as software goes, again there are many choices, but there is one
that
is clearly the king of the hill. First of all, you can just not even
bother
installing any software that is included with the camera. It's all just
junk. The king of photo editing software is and always has been Adobe's
PhotoShop, but it's real expensive and requires a strong commitment to get
over the learning curve. However, PhotoShop Elements, now out in version
5.0, offers most of the important features in photo editing (especially in
the new version), is quite easy to learn (there's no shortage of how-to
books available if you want to get deep into the program), and can be had
for about $80. For me, digital post-editing is just as much of the
process
of digital photography as the shooting. With simple and inexpensive tools
and a modest skill set, marginal photos can be salvaged into decent shots,
and good shoots can be tweaked into truly outstanding ones.

You made some great points - wish I had gotten into it that deep.

However, not to take this off in a different direction, but... :)

I've been doing some experimenting in the different color spaces that
Olympus supports - sRGB, aRGB and ProPhotoRGB converting out of RAW
(ORF in Oly land) using a NEC SpectraView 2090 printer and I'll be
damned if I can see a difference between sRGB and aRGB. There is a
difference with ProPhotoRGB, but it's a "difference" - not better or
worse.

If you examine the photos under a good "white" light, you can see a
slight change in colors, but in natural light, it just does not exist.

I'm curious if you've done any experiments with this.

Nikon offers the option of choosing three different color modes:

Mode I is the default sRGB color gamut. It is the default gamut that web
pages and most monitors and printers expect.

Mode II is the Adobe RGB color gamut. This gamut is supposed to have a
wider space, and is designed to be used when printing with high fideltity
equipment. The problem is, that you must be sure and set all equipment and
drivers to the Adobe color space throught the entire process from shooting
to display to print. If a photo that was shot in the Adobe space is viewed
or printed with a device that is calibrated for sRGB, the colors in the
photo will appear to be less saturated. The best analogy I can think of
harkens back to the days of recording audio on cassette tape. If you wanted
the best listening experience, it was best to encode your recordings with
Dolby noise reduction, assuming that you were able to decode the Dolby
compression on playback. If you ever listened to a Dolby encoded tape
without a Dolby decoder activated, it was worse than if the recording was
never encoded to begin with. I've spent no time shooting in this color
mode.

Mode III is the sRGB space with a higher saturation of colors, especially
greens. It affords more vivid landscapes.


By the way, I also use a pro color lab for my prints - it's actually
cheaper for me.

The only way to go, and yes, it's cheaper than rolling your own.


And to add to the original discussion, for my money, the only real
advantage - other than shutter lag (that was for you John) - to a DSLR
is RAW. However as most folks shoot in .jpeg, I don't think that is a
concern in this instance.

I rarely shoot raw. I find the biggest benefit to raw is the mulligan
factor. It allows you to change the white balance and exposure of the shot
after the fact, without the negative effects of trying to accomplish the
same thing in a JPEG after the fact. Much of this can be accomplished by
shooting JPEG's with exposure and WB bracketing. Beyond this feature, I
find raw to be a bit over-hyped and more trouble than it's worth. Not
surprisingly, I don't find raw the most compelling reason to shoot with a
DSLR (there are a few higher-end point and shoots that also allow raw
shooting). These are my reasons for preferring a DSLR format camera:

1. As mentioned above, the handling and ergonomic fit to my hands. A
camera should be an extension of your mind's eye, almost invisible to the
process. Once comfortable with the camera, changing settings on the fly
should involve a minimal amount of thought and hunting for buttons. On a
well designed body, all the controls fall naturally under the appropriate
digits for manipulation. Also, due to the size of the body versus the
diminutive size of most point and shoots, there is actually room to include
dedicated buttons for the control of the camera versus having to accomplish
the same degree of control in a point and shoot by changing settings in
menu, if the level of control is offered at all. Obviously, having a camera
feel good in your hands is very much a personal preference, but the point is
that there are any number of choices out there in DSLR land that should
offer a good fit. In my case, I originally intended to upgrade my D70 to a
D80. The D80 has a smaller body than the D70, about the size of a D50.
Once I put the D80 in my hands, it felt too small. I had to contort my
fingers to get to the camera controls that mattered. Also, the smaller body
wasn't a good counter balance to the default lens I use. The larger size
and weight of the D200 solved both those problems.

2. Shutter lag. It exists in most point and shoots and doesn't in most
DSLRs. I don't know why. But I do know that it's obnoxious and I don't want
to have to deal with it. You can also include the instant-on boot time for
my DSLR versus the annoying little screen display and silly audio playback
that occurs when I turn on my Oly point and shoot, both of which contribute
to a much slower boot up time.

3. Point and shoots have a rangefinder style viewfinder. Very inferior to
a through the lens viewfinder, in my opinion. No opportunity for DOF
preview on a point and shoot. Very limited shooting data is displayed in
the viewfinder of a point and shoot. As a result, you'll notice most that
use point and shoots compose a shot using the LCD display on the back of the
camera. This presents a number of issues such as a) trying to see the
display in direct sunlight, b) holding a camera away from your body at arm's
length is the most unstable way possible to hold a camera, and c) you look
like a dork.

4. Shooting speed. I'm not aware of any point and shoot that can keep up
with a DSLR when shooting in burst or continuous mode.

5. Sensor size. The larger sensors in a DSLR allow for shooting with
higher ISO sensitivities without the resulting noise.