I can only second that... As usual Marc, your comment is so eloquent I really don't know what to add. What I like about this forum is the genuine enthousiasm of its members and mods.

Yep, this seems to be the process allright ! I use it quite often. I first read about it in a Photoshop book a very long time ago (about 6 years or so) and experimented with it until I got some decent results in print. In the mean time, I've refined this technique somewhat (a colleague -absolute expert PS user- has given me some pointers). If I have some time, I'll write it all down and make it available. By the way, If you understand the digital processes behind this technique, you can develop quite sophisticated (and spectacular) "remove grain / noise" actions. I'm in the process of writing down some of my techniques for a friend of mine. So, when I'm finished, I'll pass those on to the forum mods...

Thanx for your comments, guys. Mike, I really like your website (it's in my "favorites"); I can "find myself" in a lot of visual concepts you execute so excellently. Marc, you're absolutely right ! For me, the canon D30 was the camera I wanted : reasonably priced, full-featured and a great introduction to (semi-)professional photography. When I had enough money to purchase it, Canon decided to take it off the market. Stocks were already very low, so overnight, the D30 was nowhere to be found (except on ebay or some other on-line stores, which I don't trust). They're doing exactly the same with the D60 (which is a D30 with a different (more expensive) chip). I fear that in a couple of weeks, the D60 will have disappeared and replaced with a ... (much) more expensive camera. So I think I'll go out and buy it this weekend even if it will make my credit card moan a bit... As for the lens : I don't plan to be using this camera for sports photography or action shots; I'm planning to do some series on architecture and gardens in the region where I live (Belgium > Flanders > Ghent). But at the same time, I do like to make the odd holiday picture or a nice family portrait. If I understand it correctly, I should not be looking for really "fast" lenses or "L"-grades, but spend my cash on wide angle (somewhere in the region of 24-70 mm x1.6) ?

Oh my... this is a very specific scenario. Feels like a typical legal case (as a lawyer, I have to deal with those on a daily basis). But your question was about ethics... Due to the very specific nature of a software product (with the abstract notion of licenses most people find very hard to understand), i'd say that it's not unethical in this case. It may be illegal, but that's another question. Moreover, I think that software companies (and music publishers) are missing the mark when it comes to copy protection techniques. When you look a round just a bit you'll find that there are no fail-safe methods. Within days of its release, I already found several warez versions of Poser5 floating around in cyberspace. The same goes for every popular title (you name it : MAX, Lightwave, Photoshop, etc...). The more sophisticated the copy protection scheme, the greater the challenge for the crackers and the faster you'll find these illegal versions (sounds like a paradox, doesn't it ?). There really is trouble in paradise when the copy protection technology actually degrades the product (amply demonstrated in the initial Poser5 release) and when warez versions are actually more stable and reliable than the official product. That's where I draw the line. Instead of spending large amounts of money on (per definition) flawed copy protection schemes, these companies should go back to the basics : proper service, good documentation (when did you last encounter a good printed manual for an expensive piece of software ?) and support... For the record : I frequently hang out on hackers forums and know my way around in the software underground,... BUT I DO NOT use illegal software (one of those principles I tend to live by); I'm just curious how this movement works. (hackers don't just do it for fun, as some people mentioned in previous threads. That much I've learned over the past few years.)

Attached Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-notes.shtml

A few pointers (from experience) : Don't play the "Megapixel game" : more is not necessarily better. You have to ask yourself what the maximum printed size of your photo's is going to be... A friend of mine owns a 6 Mpix camera and consistently shoots at lower res to cram more photo's on the memory cards (which are still expensive). IMO you can't go wrong in the 3 - 5 Mpix range. Also remember that a megapixel is NOT a quality measurement unit ! More important is the "glass" : the quality of the lens determines the quality of the shot ! Whether you buy a $ 5.000 DSLR or a $ 500 digicam... On www.dpreview.com, you can easily compare the qualities of different lenses. DON'T consider the "digital zoom" when comparing camera's : digital zoom is basically unusable (I always disable it) when hunting for quality photo's. So try to find a decent optical zoom system (that should eliminate some of the competition) Functions : personally, I find video capabilities obsolete (when I want to make a video, I'll buy me a videocamera), but I know that for some users this may be quite important. For me, digital photography is all about learning the various concepts of lighting, white balancing, focus, aperture, etc... so I prefer a camera with lots of manual controls available "on the fly" (as opposed to selecting them through a myriad of menus). That's why I bought myself a Minolta Dimage about 9 months ago. Now I'm saving to get my dream camera : the awesome Canon D60 DSLR...

Attached Link: http://www.acdsystems.com/English/index.htm

... Beautiful; have you been strolling through that elven forest again ? Reminds me of some descriptions in Tolkiens LOTR (not the movie, the book !) "Real" camera or not (whatever that may be), I love them.

Crazy... not at all !!! Digital is what really got me started with photography; the fact that you can (almost) immediately see what you're doing means that "digital" is one big invitation to experiment ... and learn. There's very little obscurity about it. I find that with film (esp. colour), my work is bound to dissapear in "the black hole" for a couple of days until I can actually see what I was doing. Just a couple of weeks ago, my father lent me his Hasselblad medium format camera. Impressive stuff, but oh so frustrating having to find a half decent lab and waiting for nearly one full week to get the film developed (quite expensive too) and scanned. Nice results (nothing really really impressive), but in retrospect, I would have liked to experiment more "on the spot" building on the feed-back from each previous shot. Only Digital can offer that. So I really like my Dimage 5 (3 Mpix) : from various forums on the internet (+ the occasional "lucky shot") I've learned that there's a lot of potential yet to unleash from that camera, so the "experiment" continues. I've been able to test a wonderful semi-pro D-SLR : the Canon D60 and I've truly fallen in love with it. Virtually "noise-free" (grainless) pictures up to 400 ISO is a very hard number to beat. A wide range of very high quality glass and... again that immediacy of results making the learning curve very very gentle and exciting. So now I'm saving to get one myself (it'll take a while though, these cams are quite expensive...) So, welcome to the forum and I'm really looking forward seeing your work.

Yes, I'm with star... A self-portrait (not necessarily the classical mug shot) This could become a very interesting challenge...

hmmmm, no polarizer... Maybe you'll have to bounce the flash around some (using that white umbrella or a neutral grey card...) I'm not really at home in the studio, but I would like to learn as much as possible. Please tell us, alpha....

Congrats, you succeeded in capturing an image of a Grebula, an extraterrestrial from the planet Zordak IV. You were very lucky, because they tend to hide themselves as soon as you get your camera out (... come to think of it, maybe my wife is a Grebula too ... ???) ;-)

IMO, there's only 1 criterium : the end result... If you achieved that "perfect" shot by "helping" nature a bit (e.g. rearranging a fallen leaf or moving that shell 10 inches to the right) then I won't think you're trying to cheat me. Now, I never felt the need to "arrange" a photo, but I wouldn't feel guilty about it. I find the pure "objective" approach really very restricting. Now, if we were discussing about extensive use of postprocessing techniques...

I've always been told that the difference between the amateur and the pro is that the latter carefully plans his/her photographic compositions (and subjects). That's also the reason why I'm not a pro ;-) Lately, I've been "scouting" some of the locations for my pictures and then returning very early in the morning to catch that magical diffuse light, or just at the right time of day to improve lighting conditions (you know, to avoid those deep dark shadows against washed out skies). Then I have all the time I need to set up the camera (tripod and all), etc...

Star, the files have been mailed. Tell me what you think of it. (changes, rewriting some parts, other examples, ... just name it)