Hello all,

First post to the site but I have been lurking for a while and really enjoying all the information and discussion!

I recently took advantage of Canon's rebate offer and purchased the Pro-100 printer. I was wondering what most of you use for paper and ink. Do you stick with the printer manufacturer's products? What about some of the aftermarket products like Ilford or Moab? If you use those, do you bother downloading the printer profiles? Someone mentioned Kirkland paper in a previous post. Do they have downloadable profiles for their paper? Lastly, are their any discount outlets that sell quality products for less than getting them at the local shop? Sorry if I violated courtesy protocol by asking so many questions!

Thanks!

These shots would be just fine if it weren't for the lines running against the grain of fur on the deer's neck. I don't notice it on the face, just on the neck. They run cross ways in the white area & a bit further down on the neck. Except for a slight crop on the right side, there was no pp. This bugs me. Any help/ info would be appreciated. All shots were jpeg. I didn't want to spend all night working with raw. I've been experimenting with raw but it takes me forever to pp. & they don't seem to turn out as well. I'll check to see if the lines are on them also.

With a Nikon you can easily test the effect of a UV filter on your results. First, go into the menu and tell the camera to concentrate on getting the most resolution in jpg. Then take a few pix of the same scene (use a tripod) with and without uv filer and go into EXIF data. If both photos have the same file size (or close to it), then it doesn't have any significant effect on your photos. And if it makes you feel safer, use UV filters.

Also, even if it does make a difference, it may not matter. A local camera club takes its submissions on line and then projects them. The maximum size for submission is 1024 pixels on the longest side, which make each photo size just about 1 mp or less. Which means they might just as well be using the oldest, most out-of-date call phone cameras! And yet this crowd swears by their D800 cameras!

I never use uv filters, (My first Leica M3 was bought in RAF Station Sculthorpe for $166 in 1956 and no scratches or lens damage since that a uv filter could have prevented) but I do like rubber lens hoods -- they give good protection as you casually swing through an open doorway with camera dangling on shoulder.

I shoot the MAJORITY of the time in a marine environment. Either on the beach, or in the estuaries and marshes of NW Florida.

I agree 100% with the above; UV filters REDUCE image quality and DO NOT offer any REAL protection to the front element of your lenses.

Retailers make a LOT of money selling those useless items. Additionally, people who are serious about photography question their image quality and "upgrade" their cameras to get better images when all they had to do was REMOVE those stupid "protective" and UV filters.

A very good friend of mine owned an independent camera shop for 20 years before selling out to a chain, and HE said UV filters on digital cameras is like putting Breasts on a Bull; they may look good, but they don't do a DANG THANG! :lol:

I already own a DSLR that I love, and I capture in RAW and pp in Lightroom. However, there are times when I can't or don't want to carry the camera, so I'm trying to decide whether to purchase a very compact point and shoot or just use my phone. I haven't found a point and shoot that captures RAW, so I am wondering if it is worth getting a point and shoot that has aperture and shutter priority if I can only capture jpeg. Is the sensor size in a point and shoot markedly bigger than my Samsung S5 phone?