will_daniel1

Contact the people who write such releases and ask to be put on their mailing list.

Terry, I frequently shoot with my D60, and I shoot raw+JPEG basic. I use the basic JPEGs for viewing purposes only. If I don't like a shot, I delete both the raw and the JPEG, and move on. When I have made my final selections, I use Nikon View NX2 (free) or Capture NX2 to save all the raw images as high-resolution JPEGs or sometimes TIFFs. Viewing my new JPEGs on screen side-by-side with the basic JPEGs reveals that they are nearly identical, but the new ones are more suitable for printing. It takes just a short while to teach yourself this stuff.

I don't shoot many flash photos, but I am very happy with my Quantaray by Sunpak QF30 (Quantaray is the Ritz Camera brand -- not sure what the Sunpak equivalent would be). It is fully compatible with all the Nikons I've used it with, gives ample (for me) TTL reach, and is quite compact and light (uses just two AA batteries). It was well under $100.

<p>I think that guy should write another article titled <em>The Dreams and Delusions of Writers</em>, because he surely is deluded about his writing ability.</p>

Harry, your first mistake was not getting out of there immediately when you first heard the fire alarm. People die because they did what you did. Nice to see that you're still with us.

Anyone know of good locations to shoot the Rivanna River in and around Charlottesville, VA? I'm using mapping

software and Google Earth to find locations, but I'm sure someone knows a great little hidden spot I can get to. I'm

heading there Friday. Thanks.

<div></div>

<div></div>

I got over the hurdle when a photographer friend called me on a Friday night from jail (child support issues) and begged me to shoot a wedding for him the next day. My medium format rig was broken, so the only thing I had to shoot with was a $99 Cosina 35mm camera. I was able to rig a decent flash to it and shoot the wedding. This was in the film days when it was unheard of to use 35mm for weddings. The photos were beautiful, and I never had equipment angst again. In fact, I have the opposite of equipment angst; I preach taking a minimalist approach to the equipment you use.

John did not say his neighbor is his friend. I don't see a natural connection there. Furthermore, I don't see a connection between self-publishing and needing a free or even reasonably priced photo shoot from her neighbor photographer. John, there are too many unanswered questions in your post, and those who are trying to help you are jumping to conclusions.

<p>Powerful, free, easy-to-use small utility: <a href="http://www.1-4a.com/rename/">http://www.1-4a.com/rename/</a></p>

<div></div>

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

<p>I discussed my wish list some time ago here: <a href="00XvSf">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XvSf</a></p>

<p>I just want a compact, wide prime somewhere in the 14-16mm range -- <em><strong>not </strong></em>a fast prime (52mm filter thread please). That's it.</p>

I would add that maybe the third party could talk directly to the photographer and work something out.

I used one -- a lot. I was a Pentax sales rep when we introduced the K series and later the M series, and I don't view the KX as a predecessor to anything. The KM and KX were both merely (in my view) an extension of the Spotmatic series, but with a bayonet lens mount that consumers were clamoring for and a few very nice new features in the KX. The K2, on the other hand, was a radical new design, and may have been the predecessor to something else, probably only the K2DMD, but I'm not sure on that. I believe the entire K series was just a stopgap measure until the M series of radically re-designed Pentaxes came on board. Indeed, the M series was on the drawing boards when the K series was introduced. As we discussed in an earlier thread in the Pentax Forum, the K1000 came much later than the initial K models, and that had to do with the fact that we still had so many screw-mount promotional models (SP1000) in the pipeline.

John, I take exception to what you just wrote. I know what quality means and I'd bet 100 percent of the other people posting here also know. Step back and take a deep breath, and don't tell us we don't know what quality means. Maybe you meant to say something else.

(Disclaimer: I am no expert, and what I'm about to write is strictly hearsay and opinion.) I worked for two large Japanese camera companies and later represented several smaller ones as an independent sales rep. What I picked up in my 20-something-year career in this industry is that those people make deals in Japan that would be strictly illegal in the U.S. under anti-trust laws. They shared technology with one another up to a point. When one guy invents something, he shares with the rest in exchange for use of a patent from the other guy, either one that exists or a future one. In that scenario, if it still exists, I'd guess that for Nikon to sue Sigma it means the latter somehow violated a trust from perhaps a handshake deal.

For my recent book, I tried to pick the very best quality images of the James River. But I had this one crappy (in my opinion -- it actually looks pretty good in the book) photo I just had to include. I photoshopped the crap out of the photo, which was taken from a moving boat on a dark day when the sun was going down. The only thing that saved it was I had an f1.8 lens on the camera. Still, a crappy photo among all the high quality ones. Why? It was the estate of the late country music hall-of-famer and sausage king Jimmy Dean. A few months after I got the shot I was able to get an interview with the frail and dying owner of the estate, but could not get on the estate for more photos. That crappy photo was crucial to support my interview, which turned out to be his last. So, in the world of photojournalism you shoot for the best and publish what you must.

<p>I agree that smaller equipment has more advantages than disadvantages, but I draw my line differently. I think the DSLR is important, but not necessarily the high-end models. Anyone can do professional work with so-called consumer products.</p>

<p>I covered some of this stuff in my recent book <em>James River Reflections</em>. The book contains 249 of my digital images, and the final chapter is Tips for Photographers. In that chapter I stress a minimalist approach -- small DSLR and the 18-55mm kit lens -- as more than adequate for really good landscape photography. As proof that you don't need a $3,000 camera and $1,000 lens to get great shots, my publisher picked a 2008 image I had taken with a 6.1 megapixel Nikon D40 with kit lens for the (8.5X11-inch) cover. I wouldn't have thought that would happen. I had suggested a shot taken with my larger D200 and heavier 18-70mm lens. The reason for the change was the publisher had chosen a horizontal format for the book instead of my assumed vertical. I eventually sold off the D200/18-70 combo because it was too large and heavy for my purposes, and settled on the smaller D80 as my everyday machine.</p>

<p>This is not to say there isn't a need for more esoteric gear; it's just not as necessary as some folks think it is.</p>

<div></div>

This was discussed here some time ago, and I believe the consensus was to turn off auto white balance. Can't remember the reasons why, but whatever it was made sense to me at the time.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>