The way this is going, maybe the Artist page here on Renderosity.com should allow an image of the Artist's workspace and a bio for the computer(s) -- that would be in addition to the image and bio of the artist. Who wants to make the suggestion to Tim or Clint? G

I love to see what is really there .. not just what > Billy wants me to see Right. Each time I have Billy over for brewskies, I try to tell him that issues like that give him a negative image ... and all I get back is a sly grin. Oh well.

IIRC, FastFind was part of M$ Office ... in some configurations, people claimed that it used up to 20% of PC resources just so that Office documents opened just a little faster. Typical M$ design ... fix the appearance, not the real problem. Deactivating the XP cache would be a Bad Thing (TM). When you open one of these folders, do you see a file called thumbs.db? That holds the thumbnail images for the folder -- if not there, it has to be rebuilt each time you open the folder. Since it is a hidden file, you need to use this incantation to compel hidden files to become visible ... Open a folder with images, click "Tools" -> "Folder Options" -> "View" ... there, under "Advanced Settings", then "Files and Folders", then "Hidden files and folders" ... click on "Show hidden files and folders" Note: Even though you could "Apply to All Folders" or "Reset All Folders" ... I wouldn't do that kind of global change just yet. ... Instead, simply click "OK" for the current folder.

The most likely cause is not caching the thumbnails ... bot there could be additional issues. Before you begin ... if you feel uneasy about making this kind of change, that is beneficial -- you understand the problem ... after all, you learned Photoshop, didn't you? This stuff is less difficult. That having been said, please have paper and pen/pencil so that you can record all of both the old settings and the new settings. Doing that is a "Good Thing" (TM). Some Windoze "secrets" ... 1. Don't let FastFind run ... ever. 2. Be sure that the swap file area is managed by Windoze 3. If your OS is earlier than XP, performance settings ... Right-click "My Computer" -> "Properties" -> "Performance" under "General", check the installed memory value; under "Advanced Settings" click "File System" ... Under "Hard Disk", set Typical Role to Network Server; set Read-Ahead optimization to the smallest value that works (my W95 machine this is set to 8K). 4. On XP, Click "Start" -> Right-click "My Computer" -> "Properties" ... under "General", check the installed memory value; under "Advanced" -> "Performance". This opens "Performance options". Under "Visual effects", select "Adjust for best performance" Note: your screen appearance will change. BTW, I just made this change and it seems to bring up the windows faster (i.e "good"). Under "Advanced", all of the options should favor the application. In addition, check the size of the swap area. This applies to all of the above ... In a window with tabs (or as the partner I worked for at Deloitte said, "Folios"), make all of the changes before clicking OK ... otherwise click Cancel. Please reply with your experience so everyone can learn.

@Raven_427 ... Uummmm there are three swords hanging on your wall ... riiight? ... I'm not going to say anything except to compliment you on how neat your setup looks. Do you want to discuss Bryce Network Render? I may be able to help.

Ooohhhh ... I forgot to mention that I am running a SETI farm with 14 PC's (two are dual processor, so there are 16 CPUs in total). The shelving has 15 system units (3 aren't being used -- too slow); one more (the one I'm using as I type) in the computer desk -- you just about see it in the lower right of the image. A Belkin Matrix KVM switches either of the two keyboard/mouse/monitor to any of the systems in this room. None of the 4 UPS show in the images ... but I know where they are. Same for the printers. The system I'm using now is XP, PSP 7, Visual Suite, etc. One of the other systems here is running ME and the remaining 11 systems are running RedHat Linux. I am hoping that someday, I will be able to configure these boxes to run a RenderFarm ... soon, I hope. Any questions?

The other workspaces seemed quite nice -- neater than mine, too. This PC is for surfing and eMail. I use w95 and Netscape 4.75 on this PC (IE, if I must). I suppose this image has an unusual POV ... the PC in a small cubby (visualize a moderately sized closet or nursery). I don't have the wide angle lens for the Coolpix 4300 ... so I had to get some distance from the subject by using a lader. I realize this configuration is a little odd ... recently, I reported an HTML problem to a major site -- when one of the webdesigners heard w95 and Netscape 4.75, he exclaimed, "You're every webmaster's nightmare!" I thanked him by saying that it was the nicest thing anyone had said to me in the last 10 days.

Glad to see you here. Both of the pictures that you have uploaded are superb. Thanks for sharing.

Attached Link: http://www.reeddesign.co.uk/testcard.htm

Chris, Welcome to Renderosity. Hope you will have a lot of fun here. A somewhat enigmatic image ... he looks relaxed and with good intent. The lighting is much darker on my PC than I like -- if you processed the image on a Mac, that might explain the difference. The attached link has some test card images and explains how to adjust your monitor's contrast and brightness controls. You might want to crosscheck the adjustment with other people. Are there any comments from others in this forum? About the Renderosity upload limits ... one image a day. If you go to "Member Options" -> "My Services", you can do up to 3 uploads per day by paying $5 per month and a 1-time $5 setup fee. That would be useful if you were going to consistently generate 2 or more images each day. MGD

Why couldn't I shoot color and then use Photoshop to get a black and white image?

Example images ... I forgot that. I used my Nikon Coolpix 4300 for every image in my gallery (except "Extreme Fog" was shot by my Canon A1).

I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 ... you could get one for $300 to $350 (plus tax, shipping ...). For that camera, you should also get a spare rechargable battery $40 in addition to a spare non-rechargable $12; 1 or 2 compact flash cards -- Lexar 256MBy 12x $54 or Lexar 256MBy 40x $70; LowePro 10AW bag; I am able to carry a tabletop tripod $20 in along with everything else. The 4300 will do closeups, near, far etc. It has 3X optical zoom. It is a 4 mega pixel camera and can even generate a 10MBy TIFF file (if you want). The downside is that manual focus is clumsy, it has limited depth of field -- and not easy to control; also not as easy to set exposure as on an SLR. See what others suggest before making your decision.

Thanks Donald. Knowing what to look for helped ... and google knew where to look. The best reference was here ... http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/ BTW, the item is an Canon Lens Converter FD-EOS and google did fine with just FD-EOS I found out just how much trouble I might have and that none of my FD lenses could work with an EOS body. In summary, I didn't spend additional money and didn't buy additional trouble.

Canon ... you couldn't mount the old ones on new EOS > bodies (at least, not without a special adapter ring). Does that mean that a Canon lens that works on my Canon A1 would work on a Canon EOS digital? What's the model number for that adapter ring?

Attached Link: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/

I asked my friend Google about this camera ... this review http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s602-review/ had something to say about noise ... "Unlike a regular CCD, the SuperCCD has hexagonal-shaped pixels, which allows Fuji to pack more sensors into the same area, which allows the sensors to collect more data. Using this data, the S602Z can produces those 6 million pixel images that it's famous for. Of course, there's some interpolation (the camera is guessing) involved in the creation of those large images, which is why they have noise and strange artifacts sometime." In addition, that review indicates that at the higher ISO values, the sensors are paired to gain that additional sensitivity ... the tradeoff is that the number of pixels is halved. Another point to consider ... Does the camera have a setting for noise reduction? That would be a place to start ... you might even make some comparison pictures. MGD