[DJ1234]

So I'm a photographer without much money, and therefore not much equipment. (Am I really a photographer if I don't have all that "stuff?").

Anyway, not much money means I'm working on a 30 day trial version of photoshop (it's still within the first 30 days, so it's still legit). Anyway, I've adjusted everything to look good on my screen, and saved a couple of PSD files and the rest at Jpeg with 12 compression. I'm about to go through and save the one's I've post processed, but before I do I'm wondering what types of changes I'll have to make so that what I see will be the same as what gets printed. Oh, on a side note, I'm in China and don't trust any of the people here to get the colors printed right as 1) I don't speak Chinese and don't know how to explain this all to them and 2) I sit and watch little highschool girls slaughter pictures in photoshop everytime I get my pictures burned to CD's. Anyway, can I record my computer monitor's make and model and settings and just tell the people when I get home, or do I need to make some corrections myself?

[ADK_Jim]

First question first: If you are taking photos, you are really a photographer. Some really great photos have been made with equipment that was little more than a box camera. Equipment doesn't make the photo, the skill of the photographer makes the photo.

Second question: Color will vary somewhat from one monitor to another even within the same make/model. To get consistent and accurate color in printing you need to calibrate the whole process. I'm not clear why anyone you pay to burn a Cd for you would alter the color balance. All they need to do is copy the files to CD. It isn't even necessary for them to look at the images. You simply send them to the Cd burner. Perhaps they are downsizing and recompressing them to get more on a CD? Ideally you should be archiving copies of your original uncompressed, unedited images to CDs. If you want to archive edited copies also to use on another computer that's fine, but every edit removes some data and each time you edit and resave over top of an existing JPG file you lose data. Archiving your unedited originals to CD or DVD, even if you shoot JPG rather than RAW, is your insurance policy that you can redo the images in the future if need be.

ADK Jim

[aine-caitlin]

So I'm a photographer without much money, and therefore not much equipment. (Am I really a photographer if I don't have all that "stuff?").

DJ, I can tell you that you are certainly a photographer without all the "stuff." I used to have that "imposter syndrome" too because I didn't have an expensive camera and a lot of equipment (I use a Sony Cybershot DSC-H2), but I know now, through the encouragement of fellow photographers, that it's not the camera that makes a good photographer. A different camera and more equipment can give you more opportunities, but not make you a good photographer. Oh sure, I want the "stuff" someday too, but in the meantime, we are definitely photographers.

[matthew]

Getting colours to match between monitor and print can be a challenging process at the best of times, even when you do your own printing and have a calibrated monitor.

If you do have a calibrated monitor, which is done by using a colour-matching device like the basic Huey or a more elaborate unit, you will be able to save the image (PSD, TIff, or JPeg) with the colour profile embedded in it. Theoretically this will let the lab doing the printing know what the colours are supposed to look like. But, the lab needs to care, which may be a big problem, and then there's still no real guarantee that the colours will match properly anyway.

Did I remember to call this "challenging"?

And about the equipment issue: there's an individual here who produces excellent results using a camera that's a generation older than the model that I retired when I bought my first dSLR a couple of years ago. Today I bought the replacement for that camera, which supplements another one that I picked up at the start of the summer. I now have four SLR bodies, two of which are current models, and eleven lenses. And a teleconverter. If anything, I'm the one here who's not the photographer.

[guerito]

So I'm a photographer without much money, and therefore not much equipment. (Am I really a photographer if I don't have all that "stuff?").

I started a new thread in the general talk section...

[digitalzen]

At one time I had more money invested in photographic equipment than many have in their homes. If you know how to use it, and don't just buy stuff because you think it will make you a better photographer, then there's some sense to it, and it may help a little if you need to produce professional work.

However, as has been said here -- and many times elsewhere -- vision is what makes a photographer. Some of my best work has been with consumer-grade digital cameras (I long since quit trying to make a decent living taking pictures), and apart from the Pentax K10D I'm purchasing to photograph my daughter's wedding and because of its suitability for use in harsh environments, I don't expect ever to own another expensive camera.

Master composition, understand light -- the photographer's basic ingredient -- and learn basic post processing. Digital printing is a challenge, but the freedom of digital media means you can spend time learning to make good pictures (I despise the word "capture;" it's so trendy and "look at me, I'm an in-person!") instead of slaving in darkrooms and messing with chemicals like us old farts had to. I hated every minute after pushing the button. Still do. But I LOVE the results, which make the rest worthwhile.

Sure, you're a photographer. Now go make nice pictures.