I have iPhoto. From what I have found (and been able to understand on the internet), computer screens only have 72 dpi and so that is what Mac sends photos in. If this is the case, how do professional photographers send photos over the internet? And that to get a good quality print, you need to print at 300 to 600 dpi. But my printing program does not ask for dpi. It only asks for size of print and even then won't print that size. For instance, when I put in that I want a 5 x 7 print, it will print 4 x 7 and cut off a head in the picture as well! I have the Canon MX870 series printer. And the manual is talking about PNG files, and I don't know what that is. I thought my camera only worked with jpeg or RAW files. I have learned that working in RAW files won't degrade the image on storing it like jpeg files do, but I would need to get new software. And this book I have says the jpeg files should be good enough for ordinary pics. And the manual is also talking about the camera needing to be a Pictbridge compatible device and I have no idea if the Canon 480 D is. This is getting way too complicated for me. I wish I had brought my little Pentax with regular film on vacation with me. People on another forum are advising me to upload pics to a Walgreen site and have them print them. But if the Mac only sends pics at 72 dpi, what good does that do?

Had fun digging into the back of my closet. 1. Gauthler G. m. b. H. Clambach A 120 roll film, folding camera. Prontor II lense and shutter Made in Germany 2. Argus C3 with heavy leather case (My first 35mm camera) 3. Minolta SR1 with external light meter coupled to only the speed wheel. (The first SLR marketed in the US by Minolta) 4. Minolta X-370 with extra lens (This one is the best of the bunch.) 5. Pentax ZX-50 6. Nikon Coolpix 950 (Digital) Good lens, very good color renedition but only 2 megapixel. Has very good dynamic range of light intensity. Lousy camera - eats batteries, severe manual mode limits, futzy menus, low ASA rating 7. Canon S2 IS (Digital), 5 megapixels Fast boot up. 10x zoom - widest angle isn't quite wide enough. The maker should have traded some telephoto for wider angle. Tends to burn out bright parts of a scene unless the exposure is set to -1/3 to -2/3 f-stop. Dynamic range of light intensity is less than the Nikon 950. Can't see display in daylight. The camera has an automatic brightener for the view finder (digital). This allows good visibility down to too dark to photograph. The downside is that it slso dims the viewfinder as light brightens to the extent that the view finder is too dark to be useful in sunlight. When shootimg a series of pictures, its best to turn off the display and use the view finder to conserve battery life. Also, the automatic focus works faster. This camera has its flaws, but is superior to the Nikon 950. It's decent camera for the price. Ocassionaly a picture comes out too dark (due reducing the f-stop), but is easily corrected with photo processing software - better too dark than burned out highlights.

I have bought many dozens of cameras on ebay -- mostly antiques. I get ripped off 1/3 of the time by false claims about the camera's condition. Things like: "oh the SSN number carved into the bottom of the camera -- didn't think that was important." Then there's always the most abused word on ebay: MINT!!! I suspect you are less likey to encounter problems with newer equipment. Camera RAW is a file format (differs between makers). For the pro and advanced amatuer it typically offers 16 versus 8 bit per channel storage which allows the camera to record more tonal material. It is also, as an alternative to JPEG, non destructive. In other words RAW does not damage images via compression as JPEG does. These two qualities give the pro a higher quality image. However at a price: An image that may require 3.7 megabytes storage space as a jpeg could require 14 megabytes in RAW format. So to shoot in RAW you must invest in larger more expensive storage media. It gets worse. You can't print a 16 bit image so the RAW format photo will have to be processed down to 8 bit. Pro photogs insist on doing this by hand rather than let a computer program do it (for good reason). This takes skill and time. The JPEGs that come out of today's consumer digital cameras are pretty darn good and for the most part the extra quality you can get from RAW doesn't warrant the effort. Joe

I felt just like you do when I got my 20D in May 2005. I thought it would take me a year to learn how to use it. I started with the kit lens and P mode. In no time I was shooting aperture priority AV, and when the 4th of July came, that did it, I had to try some fireworks. I read and read what people had posted on another forum, can't mention that here, and did my homework before I got there. And I had some duds, but some keepers, too. It's by far the best to go full manual. It takes some experimentation. If you want twinkle lights, set the aperture to f8 to f14 and adjust the shutter speed accordingly. I usually start with 2 seconds. Usually in most situations 4 seconds to 1 second and sometimes 1/2 sec if really bright, so experiment in that range. And, of course, a tripod. A remote release helps with camera shake. You can get a cheap knockoff on ebay that works well. I haven't tried mirror lockup yet, but that helps with camera shake, too. I look at the lcd and try to tell if it is going to be a good one, but that is hard at night and the lcd is so small. Does the XT have a histogram feature? That helps but usually night photos bunch to the left so it won't be much help at night except to tell you you when you are totally out of the ballpark. The best thing to do is just set your camera on a tripod and practice, practice, practice on something that doesn't matter. It is not as hard as it sounds. Look at the exif after you have downloaded your photos (you should have gotten some software with your camera, DPP that came with mine or I downloaded it from Canon, can't remember, works well) and decide which ones turned out best and note the aperture and shutter speed. If you don't have a tripod, you can improvise with a bag of beans on something stable and use the timer feature, but it's best in the long run to get a good tripod. Focus can sometimes be an issue, so you may have to switch to manual focus, too, but this class of Canon cameras does a good job with focus in low light. On the 4th photos, I took a test shot in auto focus before it got too dark, it looked good, then switched the button on the lens to manual focus for the rest, but sometimes it will drift off if you point your camera somewhere else. Set your white balance to AWB. I do use custom white balance in the daytime, but haven't tried it at night yet. They say you can take a purposely blurry photo and set your custom white balance to that. I shoot exclusively in RAW now (was sure afraid to break that barrier), but it gives you so many more options, like setting your white balance after the photo has been taken, adjusting the exposure, brightness, etc., then converting to jpg. You have made a big jump. I would not use the icon modes or auto mode ever. The only icon mode I use is the sports one maybe in a pinch go to P if I don't have time to think. Sports mode works very well for moving subjects, wouldn't use it at night. It is going to take some investment in time and energy, but it will pay off in the end if you are serious about getting good photos and don't give up. This one I took when some little kid supposedly saw the Virgin Mary, I went over to see the crowds and reactions. I had the 50mm 1.8 on my 20D. Full manual mode, f10, 4 seconds, exposure bias 0, ISO 800 (don't know why I had it set so high, 400 should be fine), evaluative (pattern) metering (looks like a human eye icon on my cam), auto white balance.