Canon 350D corrupted image/memory/monitor

[Steve]

I bought a new CF card a couple of weeks back, maybe that could be the problem.

As far as my monitor is concerned it's probably seen better days. This is my 3rd computer with this monitor, if anyone has any recommendations for monitors, let me know it's time I had a new one.

This is a discussion continued from the photo areas, where you'd put up a corrupted photo from your Canon Digital Rebel (350D)...

Having one corrupt image probably isn't a big deal.. but as you say, a new memory card would seem a likely suspect.

The only thing I've seen re memory cards of late is that there seem to be lots of fake ones on eBay.. where they are sold as named brands at very low prices... when in fact some are almost worthless very poor quality cards. There is actually info on eBay about that I think.

With the monitor.. either you could see the block of black in the right hand corner was totally different to the rest of the image or you couldn't...if you could then I guess there is no problem.

If you couldn't see that then obviously to be able to see your photos as they actually are you may need a better monitor.

I change my monitors more often than I do my computers. There are oodles of great makes and models about, and prices have really dropped etc.

Obviously a flat screen is the thing to use.. I could never go back to a CRT... and I'd probably be blind by now if I still used one of those...

I'd guess that most folks here are still on 17" models.. but 19" and even 21" are now about at very good prices.

I'd buy from a reputable dealer, and I'd buy a well known make with a long guarantee.. I think mine has 3 years without any extra payment for example.

I'd then plan to change the monitor about every 3 years as a minimum...retiring the old one to be used as a 2nd monitor or on an old PC or whatever perhaps.

Those are my initial thoughts for you.. if you do decide to treat yourself to a monitor then I'd suggest mentioning the make and models you have in mind here....as that may get you some meaningful feedback if anyone knows anything about those you like the look of.

Steve

[Brian]

Obviously a flat screen is the thing to use.. I could never go back to a CRT... and I'd probably be blind by now if I still used one of those...


I'd guess that most folks here are still on 17" models.. but 19" and even 21" are now about at very good prices.

Steve

Mine is a CRT, and it doesn't do my eyes much good either.

I think a 19" model would do for me, I'll have a look around some of the reputable dealers to see what they are offering.

Brian

[Walter]

Steve

Mine is a CRT, and it doesn't do my eyes much good either.

I think a 19" model would do for me, I'll have a look around some of the reputable dealers to see what they are offering.

Brian

My last monitor was a 17" CRT IIyama which gave me many years of reliable service, my current monitor is a 19" IIyama TFT which I find excellent and would recommend the brand.

[Frenchman]

This might be of interest regarding fake memory cards
http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/FAKE-SanDi...00000001456526

[John]

17" CRT IIyama which gave me many years of reliable service.

I'm using two iiyama Prolite E431S 17" at work. They are not pricey but very good quality, contrast, etc and have analogue and digital inputs.

A colleague is currently recommending Dell 20" 2007WFP screens for graphics work.

John

[Brian]

I'm using two iiyama Prolite E431S 17" at work. They are not pricey but very good quality, contrast, etc and have analogue and digital inputs.

John

I've been looking at IIyama monitors they have good specs for the price, but first I'm going to upgrade my graphics card to one with DVI output.

Do you use the analogue connection or have you got dual DVI?

Brian

[Steve]

This might be of interest regarding fake memory cards

John (Frenchman),

We've left that link up.. we do often take down links to info like that I have to say.. as often it seems very helpful...but with hidden pitfalls.

We had a similar link recently where the info linked off to a site that took charity donations for instance.. and it didn't look above board. We've also had links to info where those pages had links to phishing sites etc...ie fake sales sites etc.. it seems way too common for good helpful info to actually be a form of SPAM or somehow misleading itself.. a real pain really.

A quick look at what you link to there only showed me that the material/info is Australian, and the links to forms etc are the Australian ones, and so probably the wrong forms/info for most folks who may find that info.

We can't check every link on things that get linked to here....so the main thing is to take great care when following links...particularly perhaps from sites like eBay and Amazon and others that seem to accept material/reviews etc that may not always be what they seem... I think some of the best known sites are some of the ones the media talks of as perhaps being the most risky... recent news reports have mentioned YouTube and MySpace for example as I expect most here have seen... here is one report on the problem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6100016.stm

Steve

[Steve]

Do you use the analogue connection or have you got dual DVI?

You asked John.. but for info with my setup the Sony 17 inch monitor is connected to my PC via an analogue connector, and the Samsung 22 inch is using a DVI connection... both go to the same video card, the one that came with the PC.

I do really love the professional type Sony monitors.. though not their home versions as they can't be height adjusted as well etc.

The Samsung just seemed to do what I wanted.. I can't particularly recommend it for any reason... it was the 5ms speed, the 22inch widescreen format, the stand being very adjustable...and it doing things like HDTV which most monitors don't that made me get that one.

Samsung info on it is here: http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/m...2dpwcsqedc.asp

I don't know anything about this supplier and it is just an example:
http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/118106

...as you can see there this 22.1 inch widescreen model is about £235 plus VAT... amazing compared to how prices used to be.

I can't recommend it as I say... because I've done no research to see what better deals/products may be about.

Steve

[John]

I've been looking at IIyama monitors they have good specs for the price, but first I'm going to upgrade my graphics card to one with DVI output.

Do you use the analogue connection or have you got dual DVI?

I use a slightly non-standard setup as I have 4 different computers (2 recent Macintosh's, an old Macintosh and a modern PC). I use them for testing web sites with different browsers on different systems.

I have a dual DVI card in my main Mac and both monitors are hooked up to that digitally. I plug the VGA port of one of the monitors into a KVM and have all the Macs and the PC plugged into the KVM for their mouse and keyboard inputs and the non-main Macs and PC plugged into the monitor port. It gives me a dual digital monitor setup on the machine I do any graphics work on, and at the push of a button (two pushes in practice) I can switch to one of the other systems when needed.

John

[Brian]

Steve

I have just ordered a new monitor and graphics card from Dabs, so hopefully I hope to see some improvement on the last batch of images I've uploaded.

The specs. for the new monitor are here.
http://www.dabs.com/productview.aspx?QuickLinx=4B5Q

It looks a decent monitor for the price, and has some decent reviews.

Brian

[Steve]

Brian,

Seems to be a £160 1280 x 1024 19" monitor with built in speakers... should be fine shouldn't it.

I see some folks saying underneath the sales info that it doesn't come with a Digital lead.

Looks from the spec like it will probably just plug into your existing card/lead for now if you need it to do that.

Dabs should be fast on delivery...so hopefully you'll be saying how great it is in no time now...

Steve

[Brian]

My new monitor and graphic card arrived today. What a difference!
It's only coupled up using the analogue connection at the moment, but the difference is amazing.
I ended up buying the iilyama ProLite E1900S, cost me £158, not bad for the specs of the monitor.

I've ordered a DVI-D dual link cable, so I expect to see a further improvement once that's coupled up. And what's neat about this monitor I can have both analogue and digital coupled up at the same time, and choose whichever method I want to receive the signal.

So that should be the end of some of the crap images I've been uploading lately.

Just one more thing, colour profiles, at the moment I am using Adobe RGB(1998) in photoshop and on my monitor. Does anyone use one that gives better colour representation.

Brian

[John]

Just one more thing, colour profiles, at the moment I am using Adobe RGB(1998) in photoshop and on my monitor. Does anyone use one that gives better colour representation.

Web browsers default to sRGB so I always convert to sRGB before saving images for uploading. I find Adobe RGB is good for printing and I use ProPhoto for converting RAW files as it is a 16 bit profile (the others are 8 bit). I can then work with a wider range of tones which gives a better chance of recovery if an area of a picture has been overexposed. After fixing levels and any other problems I convert to 8 bit and sRGB, sharpen and save as jpeg.

John

[Steve]

Brian,

Just a line re what John says there - John works from RAW files and spends time working on them as he explains.

I believe the norm here is to do the opposite, and to save photos as JPG in the camera, and then to simply upload those photos.

That normally seems to produce the best photos for most folks.. and many of the photos we reject are because of saving for use on the Web, or sharpening, and so on. There are whole threads on here on that and how a lot of folks have ruined their photo collections by altering every photo and generally reducing their quality.

So, I'd be careful to think what your aims are. With lots of folks here the only photos of theirs anyone will see as they get older and pass on will be on here.. and to leave behind a lot of photos that are not as good as they could have been would seem a real shame all round.

We do also of course more and more often now print the photos here onto prizes.

Also whether a photo from here prints well or not may decide if someone asks to use one commercially as a book cover or whatever...the original photo leaves it up to the printer whether they need to alter some aspect of it or not as they print.

Those seriously looking at photos here or using them as backgrounds etc will of course not be viewing them via a Web browser or on the Web, they will download them then view them.

In fact of course almost nobody can/will be able to properly view the full size images here online in a Web browser anyway..they are too large...and they need to download them etc to view them well. The image that most see online here is one the system creates isn't it.... at 600 pixels wide.

We are going to be using prints from photos more and more as prizes I should say... and we hope to move to large prints and canvas prints and so on as often being the prize for good photo uploads.. so attempting to make images aimed at online display and not printing would seem an error.

We are also likely to arrange exhibitions of prints of the best photos here at times down the line.. and likewise, the original photo will normally give the best chance of being included. If info has been stripped from a photo or this and that software run against it then it is likely it may not print well enough to be among the best here and get into displays etc....a real shame if the original photo would have been great for display.

If you do work in RAW then you will have to make various decisions about how you convert to JPG. Although my camera offers RAW or JPG I leave it to the camera to make the JPG files as that saves me time, and I've never felt I wanted to spend ages messing with each photo I take...and anyway....the JPG images it produces are consistant and of great quality and I can't generally beat them with DIY efforts.

So, to sum that up.. whether you use RAW or JPG is up to you... I'd just implore you not to take any info out of your photos - or if you do not to upload those ones - as the aim here is great quality original images.. not ones adapted for just viewing online etc. If that was our aim the photos here would be much smaller, and the whole notion quite different.

Going back to your monitor.. tis great you can see things more clearly at last! I'm amazed if you weren't aware you needed a new monitor etc.

I suggest you look through your images here and if there are some you'd like us to consider deleting for you please just let me know their photo numbers in a private message. There may not be any.. but some of your space images etc have always seemed brighter than you would have expected, and it may be now you can see them more clearly that you would rather try again in some cases or something.

Steve

[John]

Steve,

I wasn't suggesting working from RAW, just pointing out that different profiles are used for different purposes. The final profile should be sRGB for the web.

John