[caradoc]

I don’t recall ever having heard anyone say they loved their Quantaray – two of my mentors have said that it’s very dependent on exactly which lens you get in their line, and that their line overall is marketed toward consumer-level photographers, not pros. It’s the Ritz/Wolf “house brand,” so I’m betting you’ll get what you pay for (i.e., cheap lens.)

You might try Google. I just spent a few minutes checking, and the general opinion of the entire Quantaray line isn’t good.

[caradoc]

The vet’s office called a little while ago, and Sarah’s ashes are ready to be picked up.

Katie seems to be adjusting:

[caradoc]

set your camera to the largest image size it has. set the quality to the finest setting it has. i.e. extra fine, super fine, etc. all will still be .jpg and easily manipulated later.

I wouldn’t bet on that.

The A560 has a nasty reputation for optical fringing and artifacting in compression according to the reading I was doing earlier (trying to help him out, here.)

Given what I’ve just finished reading about the camera, I wouldn’t put any bets on scaling to print higher than 8″x10″ on a full-sized image, let alone a crop.

[caradoc]

Learning is good. Even Ansel Adams had to practice.

[caradoc]

Yep. Live and learn. I decided back in December that I hated losing good composition to low resolution, and now I shoot everything in Nikon’s RAW format – it gives me the most flexibility in saving an image that had poor lighting. It also eats about 8-9MB per image.

Fortunately, 2GB SD cards are pretty cheap these days (I’ve looked at 4GB cards, and the price/speed break isn’t quite there yet.) I can stuff 160-180 images on a 2GB card before I have to swap, and they still take up a crapload less space than the 8-10 rolls of film I used to carry in the bag.

[caradoc]

OK… I did some research. According to the specs, the A560 is capable of 7.1 megapixels, which would be scalable to the 16″x20″ image you want.

However, you have to shoot in “high” resolution to get there. The image that you’ve got on Flickr isn’t going to print at all well if you try to scale it that high.

[caradoc]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8587222@N08/

will this work for you cardoc?

Yeah, that link works. According to Flickr, that image is 563×479, and that’s not going to scale at all well up to 16″x20″.

See the chart I linked in my previous post.

[caradoc]

Jakevol2 wrote:

I could trim it to the 16×20 ratio though, right? How can I set my camera so that if I take the image I can blow it up to large prints?

What kind of camera? What’s the resolution?

There’s a decent chart of “megapixel to print size” here on B&H’s website.

[caradoc]

OK… important note.

When linking to Flickr images, the Flickr “acceptable use policy” says you’re supposed to link to the page the image is on. So, you’ll want to do something like:

[IMG]http://www.flickr.com/image/here[/IMG]

That way, if someone clicks on the image, they’ll load the Flickr page that the image is on.

I wasn’t looking for the *image*, but the Flickr page on which the image resides, hoping that I could peek at your EXIF data to see exactly what you did for the image.

[caradoc]

……………………………………..Lutefisk

There’s not enough mustard and akvavit on the planet to get me to try that again.

[caradoc]

Got links to the larger versions? When I look at the first image, I’m seeing a little bit of “stairstepping” on top of the graininess, which is likely a result of resizing the image.

[caradoc]

I love dickies, but I think I would melt in a pair of black dickies in the sun all day. I agree with you though, they’re wonderful. Maybe for winter jobs. 😛

Um… I’m in Arizona. It’s noonish, and 100 degrees in my carport.

I’m actually more comfortable in a dress shirt with a white cotton undershirt and a pair of Dickies than I am in shorts and a tank top. Wicking is good.

[caradoc]

Interesting light. Is the graininess an artifact of high ISO, or compression?

[caradoc]

Dickies Work Pants are darned near indestructible, and five minutes with a seam ripper takes their colorful little logo off.

From five feet they’re almost indistinguishable from any other “business casual” pants, and paired with a nice dark dress shirt and tie they let you blend into the crowd rather nicely.

I hate seeing everyone in tuxedos or suits and the photographer wandering around in khaki pants and a plaid shirt with a “photojournalist’s vest” over it.

You get better candids when they don’t see you coming, anyway.

[caradoc]

i did the shallow DOF with the flower thing again for that one but i was having a hard time coming up with new angles/ideas when it was just three people standing in one spot for a half hour.

That is, I think, one of the roughest things about wedding photography.

There are so many limitations on angle put in place by the bride, the groom, the mother of the bride, the celebrant (preacher, judge, whoever), the venue may have their own rules on the use of flash, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Some of my favorite shots would have been absolutely impossible in a regular church.

(clicky gets you the Flickr page for the photo, which in turn will take you to the album if you want to look around)

As you can see, I’m fond of the “over the groom’s shoulder to get the bride’s face” shot – which many regular churches forbid. Photographers can’t generally get behind the altar.

If you’re planning on making the wedding gig a regular thing, I learned an important tip early on: wear pants that you don’t really care about getting grass-stained. You will stain your knees getting some of the shots, or picking up your gear, or rearranging your bag, or changing batteries/battery cables…

[Author]

Posts