Mary Sue asked me to introduce and moderate the above topic, and I agreed, without thinking too deeply about the monster that was about to be unleashed. That's what happens when people ask so nicely ! Rather than make this too specific too soon, I thought I'd let it go whichever way you want it to go after a relatively brief introduction (if that's possible with this subject) summarizing the way I do things to generate images for 35mm slide production, the web and for printing. Each sub-topic is a TOW in itself. I should say up front I am absolutely not a skilled photographer so will defer to someone else all questions about the finer points of photography. The results which can be obtained by a relative clown are testament to the ease of use of new digital cameras ! All aspects of image manipulation are also self-taught and I would love to hear from someone expert in the intricacies of Adobe Photoshop who won't mind me bugging them every couple of days. I now use a digital camera to meet all my photography needs, prints, slides and web images. I am very happy with the results and don't envisage ever having to go back to slide or print film. As we bring up the various aspects of digital plant photography I'd love to hear about alternatives - cameras, software and techniques - as I'm sure there are many better and different ways to do this. I have always used Nikon digital cameras, either a Coolpix 950 or now a Coolpix 995. The former offered 2 million pixel (mega pixel) resolution, the latter 3.4. The 995 is perfect for all my digital photography needs, having superb Nikon optics, sufficient resolution and a wonderful macro facility built in that allows close focus to 1/8". The unique design that allows the lens to swivel independently of the body makes taking low down shots a breeze, without ever having to lay down and crawl through the mud. This camera cost around $700 but has already been superceded at least twice as resolution etc. gets better. Good digital cameras are pretty much like good SLRs and most of the rules are the same - and the digital camera gives you just as much flexibility, just using a different interface. You do need to choose the format in which to save your images - this will determine how many you can save and what quality they will be. The ultimate quality gives you huge files and slow downloads, I compromise by using the jpg format but with minimal compression - this gives me the best of both worlds, a file around 1Mb that downloads quickly with almost no loss in quality from a TIF file. You need some removable physical memory to save your digital images to - and this varies greatly as well, in capacity, type and ease of getting images onto the computer. I use a 256 megabyte type II flash card, pretty standard, but it is important to get plenty of memory. The cards that come with the cameras are woefully short of capacity. You need to get the images from the camera to the computer and you can do this directly or indirectly. I have never even installed the software that comes with the cameras, preferring to use a flash card reader (which acts as a mini-hard drive) to download images straight to my PC, into a directory kept for that purpose. Once on your PC (or Mac) the world is your oyster ! I have two programs which are indispensable - one to manage my image database, and one to manipulate the images into their final form. The former is called ThumbsPlus ($75 download from cerious.com) - and it is really a Windows Explorer which works with thumbnails made from the images in your directories. That is a gross over-simplification and it is exceptionally powerful. One of the prime uses I make of it is to batch rename all my images - saves typing these in for every one. This program also has a preview feature - you can look at large previews of each file instantly by clicking on the thumbnail. After naming, some manipulation is always going to be necessary to get the finished product and for this I use Adobe Photoshop. The latest full version is very expensive ($700) but there are much cheaper slimmed down versions available which do most of what you need. There are also several alternative programs out there. Within Photoshop (PS) I correct the exposure, get rid of any blemishes (if necessary), re-size and change the resolution as appropriate, sharpen the image and save for the web or printing. There are also a zillion tools available for doing every possible manipulation under the sun - and there are books several inches thick available to help you do just this. Images for the web are surprisingly low resolution (72 dpi) whereas to get good prints of a reasonable size you need higher resolution images (300dpi). For printing I use an Epson Stylus Photo 1280 ink jet printer - and get results which are just outstanding. Improvements in technology allow for prints which will last 75 years or more using archival quality papers and inks. The 1280 is around $450 but you can get great prints from prints at 1/3/ to 1/2 that amount. For producing photos for web site use, PS has a 'save for web' utility which allows you to maximize quality whilst reducing file size automatically to the low levels suited for rapid downloads. Like ThumbsPlus, PS has a batch utility which allows you to process hundreds of images with a single command. So, very simply, that's the process I use to satisfy all my plant photography needs. Let's hear about alternatives, issues, questions and comments - this can be as simple or as cutting edge as we like - it's up to you ! Given that I can print a magazine quality 10 x 8 image in my basement 5 minutes after taking the picture, this technology is here to stay and enjoy - and there's certainly nothing difficult about it ! J. Dr John T Lonsdale 407 Edgewood Drive, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341, USA Phone: 610 594 9232 Fax: 801 327 1266 Visit "Edgewood" - The Lonsdale Garden at http://www.johnlonsdale.net/ Zone 6b