Choosing your web site host

Below I'm copying my article from a forum. I'm hearing about people experiencing problems with hosting providers. While the overwhelming choice isn't helping, you need to employ patience in the search, so once you upload your web site, you're not going to start loosing sleep over it soon after. And always DO READ the fine print. If you don't see one, ask for it.

I have a couple of hosts that I highly recommend. Each is somewhat different. First is great for a single site, second for multiple sites.

First is: Webstrike Solutions. This is a high quality host for not much money, although the cost is somewhat higher than you may be used to seeing. I used to host with them and was nothing but extremely happy with overall service, support, server up-time and site accessibility. They have recently updated their site and packages, but did leave ONE major advantage intact: you pay $30 set up fee and you have your site hosted for 12 months with no other charges. This is especially great for the uncertain ones, who are contemplating their own site, but cannot decide. If you cancel by the end of the 12-month period, you pay nothing more. Check their packages, it's worth a few minutes of your time.

I left Webstrike for unrelated reasons and am currently hosting with Host Gator. I simply needed a reseller package and the flexibility of setting up unlimited domains, something Webstrike did not have (and still doesn't I believe). Host Gator has been very good and I have no plans looking for a change at this time.

This is, of course, only a couple of good hosts. There is more, but there is far more bad ones.

So the word of caution for those who fall for the cheap $5 per month / 50gB storage packages. It never works that way. It sounds too good and IT IS. If you're not sure what to choose, log on to Web Hosting Talk. There is enough to keep you busy for days. In fact, it might get a bit overwhelming at first, but read on and you'll finally see through all the scams. Remember also, that many will "supply" good care in the early stages of your agreement. That's especially true, if you signed up long term and have a 30-day "leave-for-no-reason" guarantee.
...

Exposing for RAW?

There is an interesting article in 2007 November issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine (which I frequently enjoy) about exposing for RAW. It brings up an unknown to many (including myself) issue of using camera LCD preview and histogram as means of correcting exposure WHILE shooting RAW. What's the problem, one might ask?

Assuming the author is correct (as I have no way of checking that out, but have no reason to believe otherwise), the histogram and LCD preview on ALL digital cameras are based on processed JPEG file, EVEN if you only shoot RAW. This means that one is looking at a (vastly) different data that RAW records. In extreme cases, your RAW will horribly disappoint later on. You may get to thinking: what did I do wrong? everything looked great on the histogram?

One: keep above in mind in such situations

Two: try to adjust your camera JPEG settings to see if you can get preview match RAW more closely (useless if you shoot JPEG also and unlikely to give you exact match)

Three: learn correct exposure techniques so you rely on the technique rather than the preview/histogram

The mentioned article (titled: Exposing for RAW by Andrew Rodney) is about a so called ETTR technique, that's Expose To The Right, or expose for highlights and develop for such. Film shooters may remember the EFSDFH (expose for shadows develop for highlights), which in most cases gave us the most printable negative. However, the bottom line is only one:

expose to ensure detail where it counts most, yet don't lose the highlights (unless this is your wish, of course)

I can't copy the whole article here (obviously), but I do recommend reading it. It might just fix some of your shooting techniques. The whole article is available HERE. You can even print it.

Digital Photo Pro is a bimonthly magazine targeting the digital photographer. It is (in my opinion) a high quality publication, although somewhat uneven issue to issue. It goes at newsstand for $5.99 and can be subscribed to for much less.

JPEG replacement announced (kind of old news)

Well, here we go: a replacement format for the venerable JPEG has been announced last year, but may not get implemented until 2009. It's called (for now anyways) JPEG XR and is based on Microsoft's Windows Media Format also referred to as HD Photo.

JPEG XR was apparently chosen on Microsoft's promise to deliver the technology FREE of charge. JPEG consortium is going to be the governing body of the new format and it says that XR will be available once the "kinks" are worked out so it conforms to standard's specifications.

JPEG XR promises better quality with better compression (not lossless though). Official press release can be found HERE.

I've not been a Microsoft basher for a long time. However, after the Vista release I may just become one. I now begin to question Microsoft's agenda every time they come up with something. WMF has been around (and might well be a better choice for now), but I'm convinced that sticking to a lossy format by the JPEG "officials" is, to me, taking the whole thing into a blind alley. It only tells me that degrading image's information is somehow the ONLY way to go (NOT). Problem is, when you have a near monopolistic giant behind an idea, it just can't be good long term. Is there a chance that giving it "away" will at some point allow Microsoft to "screw" with it? The general tendency to view this is, that it'll be the EXPERTS to govern the new format, not Mr. Gates. Will they?

I think still image format gorillas should slow down and take this issue a bit more seriously (I bet this statement upsets them). Why not think lossless???

What I'd like to see in the digital progress

I'd like to see sensor improvements in noise handling far more than a pixel count (which has already reached an above-needed level, especially in small cameras). Call it "Quality over Quantity".

There should be a focus on cutting down the noise AND some strict standard of testing for such, by which ALL manufacturers would have to go by - well, that's a pipe dream.

I'd like to see serious effort on manufacturer's part, to put some R&D into a DSLR (for starters) that has replaceable guts, especially the sensor, CPU, and buffer, so we stop spending money on the box, instead we upgrade what really counts. And while at it, why not make it an OPEN standard so third parties can come in and HELP along the way.

There should be more focus on file format development, so JPG is scrapped entirely (and ANY lossy format prohibited from ever reaching the market). Here I do believe, that there is no reason to continue with JPG for any longer than necessary. I'm not talking RAW as we know it now (and forget TIFF altogether), I mean a format that does not loose or restrict anything from the original and NEVER will. Here may I mention the OpenRAW effort (which it seems has gone nowhere). What I'd like to see is a format that gives me what film always has - I shoot, I take care of archiving with best methods available, but what I shot is accessible to ME forever, no camera maker, no software developer will EVER have a chance to change that. NONE of these things are currently true.

from article - Introduction to Photography

...

Photography combines theory, practice and vision. Vision spells talent, practice - hard work, and theory seals it all together. I believe each component is important, but their distribution in our learning process is even more so.

On theory side, we can go as far as we wish and delve into very complex facts of optics and sensitometry. This however, can quickly wear us down so as to loose interest altogether. There is little point in spending much time on photographic theories, especially in the beginning. We must interupt it with practical excercises.

Practice makes perfect. Knowing equipment we use is very important. The more time we spend on setting up our gear for a shoot and think about its controls, the less we can devote to actually visualizing the scene. Lack of equipment knowledge often leads to interuptions in our thinking process, frustration may set in, and end result may not meet our expectations. So the key is to play with camera controls at leisure, especially so with modern smaller format gear that comes with so many extras that manual is frequently needed. We need to reach a certain level of comfort with whatever it is, we intend to photograph with. Get familiar with film loading process so you won't second guess it at the least opportune time. Equipment operation shuold become a second nature, which will allow you to enjoy practicing of the photographic process that much more. Suddenly you'll find yourself just walking around and contemplating your surroundings at ease. Interesting subjects will seemingly fall into place on their own. Results will keep on improving and the phrase "joy of photography" will have finaly become justified.
...

see entire article

from article - On Focus in Photography

...
How does CoC affect focus considerations?

There is only ONE plane of exact focus. Anything outside of this plane is rendered soft. The further away from focus plane, the softer the detail. Why so?

A point photographed at plane of focus will be represented as point on the film, to be exact light rays will re-converge, after passing through the lens, at the film plane, requirement for sharp rendering.

Now let’s look at a point that is away from the plane of focus.

If it is behind it, its image forming light rays will re-converge before the film plane, so will have to travel a bit more before they reach the film. This will result in a circle rather then a point. It’s size will depend on how much before the film plane rays convergence occurred.

If our point is before it, the rays will re-converge behind the film plane. So they will first travel through the film, before convergence takes place. This will also result in a circle rather then a point on the film. And again, the size of this circle will depend on the distance between film and the rays-convergence point behind it.

In either of the latter two cases, the rendering of the circle will result in a soft looking point as recorded on the film. It is the size of this circle we’re concerned about. Our calculations will use earlier assumptions, mostly based on critical lab measurements, as a starting point.
...
see entire article