Congrats on the new camera. Nice pictures too. I like the 3rd one.
I'll try to answer some of your questions based on what I know so anyone can jump in if they want...
pilgrim said:
I had no idea just how big digital slr's were!
DSLR are about the same size as film slr...well, at least from the ones I've tried. If you are used to compact digital cameras then yes they are big. They don't call them compacts for nothing.
pilgrim said:
I have a few questions..
"Parameters" I don't fully understand this yet. I have been shooting under Adobe RGB so far because it was the only one I reconized. There is also parameter 1 and 2, then set up 1 2 and 3. Can some one explain this to me?
It sounds like you are talking about color profiles. Adobe RGB is a better choice when you are doing prints but I would stick with sRGB if you are only posting to the web. Here's a quote straight from Photoshop's manual, "Adobe RGB is a large enough color space to encompass the colors used in printing. sRGB is a smaller color space than Adobe RGB and supposedly represents the profile of the
average monitor."
Basically Adobe RGB has a broader color range that allows you to use all the colors possible in print. You don't have to use it for print but if you really want to fine tune your colors when printing then use Adobe RGB. sRGB on the other hand will represent what most monitors sees, so the colors you see on your monitor will most likely be the same for everyone. Here's another quote from Photoshop's manual, "Tagging your image with an sRGB profile increases the possibility that more monitors will correctly display the colors in your image."
I don't own a Canon so I don't know what parameters mean but it sounds like it refers to the different color profile choices. Color profiles can be a pain to work with sometimes. It would be less stressful to use the profile most people use which is sRGB for the internet.
pilgrim said:
My images come out at 3072 by 2048 pixels, but it is only 72 dpi.. I hear someone else on this board had this problem, is there anyway to change it, or am I just stuck with it.
That's surprising to hear. I assumed all DSLR would use 300 dpi because DSLR buyers tend to be serious amateurs or professionals who are more likely to get their pictures printed. As a comparision my D70 takes pictures at 300 dpi at 3000x2000 resolution and I figured other DSLR did the same. I guess I was wrong. Also a lot of reviews sites don't mention dpi so I thought it was standard. Here are some links to tutorials about the subject:
print quality/dpi sizes &
resolution 101
They say that for good prints you should keep you dpi to 250 minimum and 300 is more of the "professional" standard. It's pretty simple to calculate the dpi and max print size. Just divide your resolution (3072x2048) by the dpi you want. For example, if you wanted 250 dpi then your max print would be 12x8 inches.
Although don't panic just yet. I've read that you can get by with 150 dpi which means a max resolution of 20x14. The best way to tell is to have your pictures printed, but I'm still surprised it captures at 72 dpi. I guess Canon figured most people wouldn't print larger than 8x12 on average, which I think is true for the most part.
pilgrim said:
Also, should I start shooting in raw? Some people seem to say it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Raw is really nice if you do a lot of post editing in programs like Photoshop. Also the pictures tend to be sharper because the jpeg compression choices in camera might compress the pictures more than you want even at the lowest camera compression. In Photoshop you get to choose how much jpeg compression you want. Another factor is that every time you save a jpeg file the quality gets worst so unless the picture is perfect from the camera you'll want to shot in RAW mode.
RAW mode also helps you edit more of your pictures because the data is still there. RAW mode uses lossless compression which doesn't throw away data while jpeg uses lossy compression which does throw away unneccesary data to make the files smaller. That's why when you compress too much with jpeg it becomes worse. You are throwing away too much data to make the picture look good anymore.
Hopefully you found my ramblings useful.
First thing Im going to do once I get my next pay check is pick up that 28-300 mm sigma lens and head to the top of mt. finlayson to photograph the bald eagles!!!! I have been waiting to do this ever since I saw my first bald eagle, back when I was a young pup. 
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31978-02cde49248ebdf1b82fba5c899e08378.jpg?1734160755)
