rvalois

<p>I have to give an unqualified vote to Proshow: the GOLD and the PRODUCER version. Based on your brief description of needs, Proshow Gold will most likely do 95% - probably all - of what you require.</p>

<p>Ray</p>

<p>Hi Carla ...<br>

Simon makes excellent points when he states that "... your camera does not matter ..." and "... I've never liked the handling of any Canon DSLR I've tried ...". You simply HAVE to go out and hold various cameras in your hands, see how they feel, work with the menus, etc ...<br>

I agree 100% that the camera does not matter however, I would state quite the contrary regarding the handling of any Canon DSLR and would substitute Nikon for Canon in the statement. And so you really can't believe either of us, YOU must hold the cameras and make that determination.<br>

I read somehwere some years ago that 90% of pro photographers use either Canon or Nikon equipment and the split down the 90% is 50/50. There must be something really great coming from both. And you can't completely disregard the other players.<br>

When I purchased my MF equipment back in late '90's, I went through the same dilema ... so many excellent choices - Hasselblad, Mamyia, Contax - and then the store rep put a Pentax 645N in my hands and I was sold.<br>

Gook luck !<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Carla ...<br>

Based on the content of your short message, I can't help but ditto John's response. You must admit that you haven't provided much information.<br>

Ray </p>

<p>Hi Graham ...<br>

Is there not an equivalent to Canon's flash units' "hi-speed sync" where the flash unit can synchronize with ALL of the camera's speeds?<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Does anyone know if the AF lenses used on the 645N work on the 645D? I have the AF 75mm, AF 45mm and the AF 80-160mm as well as the AF-500FTZ flash.<br>

I've asked Pentax US who sent me off to Pentax Japan in their response but no place for "contact" Pentax Japan. Bouncing back to Pentax USA, they wrote that in the past, Pentax has always built cameras that were compatible with previously manufactured Pentax lenses. Not really the vague answer I was looking for.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Ditto on Marks Pierlot's response re the G-series and the S90.<br>

I have a buddy who normally shoots a Nikon 200 and he purchased a Canon G-11 for travel. I shoot a 50D usingCanon L lenses and just purchased a Canon S90 for travel. I might have for the G11 however, I wanted a camera I could carry in a small case on my belt.<br>

Both the G11 and S90 use the 50D's Digic 4 processor with an oversized sensor considering the size of the camera and the 10 megapixel picture capture. <br>

I am absolutely amazed at the image quality and manual control available in such a small camera (S90) and both shoot RAW. Same reaction from my buddy with the G11.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Dave ...<br>

Based on your post I'm assuming that you have a 645D. If so, can you advise if the lenses for the 645N are FULLY compatible on the 645D?<br>

The lenses I have: AF 75mm, AF 45mm, AF 80mm-160mm. Flash: AF-500FTZ<br>

I've written to Pentax US. They passed me on to Pentax Japan since the camera is not in the US yet. The Pentax Japan site has no area to contact them. Then going back to Pentax US, their responses are somewhat vague staing in effect that in the past new Pentax camera models accepted previously designed lenses but never stating that in the case of the 645D, that older lenses are in effect compatible. <br>

Whew and help !<br>

Thks,<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Frank ...<br>

I'm experiencing the same thing with my Canon S90 ... significantly more noise on RAW under low light conditions than my XTi and 50D. On the other hand, the S90 jpegs look GREAT!<br>

The joys of technology <[;-0)))<br>

Ray</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I brought your image into Photoshop and increased the light levels - as you can see- rather significantly.<br>

Interestingly, the lines the only lines that don't get blown out by are those on the pants.<br>

And I'm not exactly sure what this means.</p>

<p>Ray</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Matthew ...<br>

I would venture to say that if you do not do any PP in a photo editor of your choice that you are letting your camera determine the quality of your deliverables to your customer.</p>

<p>Most of us have shot film and we remember either using labs or doing our own darkroom work with our negatives. The point is that work (aka, processing) needed to be done to our negatives. And it didn't matter if you were shooting with MF Hasselblad, Pentax or Mamyia, etc ... or 35mm Canon, Nikon, etc ...</p>

<p>In today's digital world, the <strong>lab is us</strong> in the form of Photoshop, Lightroom, whatever ... and so we either have to let someone do the PP for us or we do it ourselves. And in the same way that work had to be done on our negatives, now work has to be done on our jpeg or RAW captures.</p>

<p>It's my personal opinion that once you've worked in RAW and seen how so much easier it is to work in RAW rather than jpeg captures, you'll never shoot jpeg again.</p>

<p>Ray</p>

<p>Hi Arthur ...<br>

Yes, Clearly, you are missing something. However, at this point you need to provide more information to assess what it i that you are missing. Posting some shots that you find are completely off- along with the EXIF data intact - would help greatly in determining your problem(s).</p>

<p>You might also want to check out this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578305&page=266 regarding the 50D on the Canon EOS forum http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=9 that speaks directly to the image quality of the 50D.</p>

<p>Ray</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Shaun ...<br>

All responses are correct. <br>

Maybe saying it another way: your hand-held meter is there to measure the light <em><strong>falling</strong> </em> on your subject(s), your camera's meter is measuring the light <strong><em>reflecting</em> </strong> off your subject(s). I think it's easier to remember it in that manner.<br>

Now whether you measure the light falling on the light side or dark side of your subject as indicated in other responses, that all depends on the effect that you're looking for.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Get yourself an ambient (hand held) light meter. Ambient meters measure the light <em>falling on your subject(s)</em> as opposed to reflected-light meters in cameras that measure the light <em>reflected from your subject(s)</em> . Once you get used to using this type of meter, you'll never leave home without it.<br>

Ambient light meters NEVER lie.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Ilkka ...</p>

<p><em>The lens does bring you CLOSER to the subject because it's on a crop camera.</em><br>

<em>No. The closeness is determined by the distance between the photographer and the subject. The image from the small sensor camera is magnified more when the print is made (i.e. ratio of print dimension vs. sensor dimension is greater), so you can use a shorter lens for a given shot (which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're trying to do and available lenses).</em></p>

<p>Of course you're correct. I meant to write the lens does <strong>NOT </strong> bring you <strong>CLOSER </strong> ... thanks for picking that up.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Paul Thomas ...<br>

You wrote "... On full frame cameras, the pixels are bigger and less dense. Cropped frame cameras have more reach because the pixels are smaller and packed more tightly together. Therefore, a 200 mm lens has a greater magnifying power (and potentially more ability to resolve detail) on a 12 megapixel cropped frame than it does on a 12 megapixel full frame ..."<br>

I've never had that explained in that manner, it makes sense but somehow I'm not grasping that this provides "more reach".<br>

The sensor size on a FF camera is 24mm x36mm. The sensor size on a 50D is 22.3mm x 14.9mm. Looking through an EF lens, the 50D will see the center 22.3 x 14.9 mm of the 24 x 36 mm that the EF lens is capable of providing. The lens does bring you CLOSER to the subject because it's on a crop camera.<br>

Are we saying the same thing????</p>

<p>Ray</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Joey Allen ...<br>

You wrote ... "... Also, APS-C gives extra reach you can't get from a full frame sensor without a much larger lens. For instance, the <strong>70-200 f/2.8 IS gives you 320mm at f/2.8 with IS</strong> , so you don't have any reason to carry around a 300mm lens ..."<br>

Sorry to disappoint you but a 200mm lens remains a 200mm lens whether it's on a FF camera or a crop. A FF lens on a crop body simply gives you a different FOV (Field of View). A 200mm does not physically become a 320mm lens (or whatever the crop factor is) because it's on a crop camera.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>An infallible way to capture the bride's white dress with all it's intricate details, the groom's black tux along with perfect skin tones while you're at it is to measure the light falling on your subjects with a hand-held ambient light meter. <br>

This meter measures the light FALLING on your subject(s) as opposed to your camera's meter (Fuji or otherwise and price of the camera equipment does not enter into the equation) which measures light REFLECTED from your subject(s).<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Nadine ...<br>

The review I read stated that the battery life is VERY short (mentioned by Bill), that the battery must be charged while it's still IN THE CAMERA, the camera takes a shot when someone smiles (cool but it's not necessarily when you actually want to take your shot.<br>

In the other hand, LOTS of positive points on the touch screen and it's iPhone/iPod Touch similarities.<br>

Personally, I wait for the next version of this product.<br>

Ray</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Patty ...</p>

<p>OK, here it is attached.<br>

Ray</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Patty ...<br>

<br />See next message with the photo attached.<br>

Ray (messed this post up !)</p>

<p>Hi Hoi ...<br>

Don't know about Elements 6 ... I went from Elements 3 to version 7. I purchased the Photoshop and Premiere Elements version 7 package. The Premiere Elements as you most likely know is for video. In my digital weddings, I always deliver a DVD with a selection of photographs, composites, arrangements etc ... all set to music and so the reason for Elements 7.</p>

<p>As mentioned previously, I use Lightroom 2 for RAW processing but before Lightroom I was using Photoshop CS2.</p>

<p>As for the indexing and your question to Errol: in the Elements indexing, assuming that you had each photograph where Mary Rose appeared labeled with Mary Rose, similarily for photographs with John Smith.</p>

<p>If you click on Mary Rose, all the photographs with Mary Rose will be displayed and this almost instantly/sub-second. Now, if you clicked on Mary Rose AND John Smith, ONLY those photographs where Mary Rose AND John Smith appear together will be displayed. </p>

<p>Click on Mary Rose AND John Smith AND another name - let's say Hoi Kwong - only those photographs where Mary Rose, John Smith and Hoi Kwong appeared would be displayed ... and if there were no such photographs, then none would appear.</p>

<p>For me, that's a WOW.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>Hi Kerry ...<br>

I use Photoshop Elements 7 to index my photos (just over 9,000 at time of writing) and use Adobe Lightroom 2 to process RAW files even though Elements 7 also has that capability. I find Lightroom 2 surpasses every software on the market for processing RAW.<br>

As for RAW being "highly overrated", I must admit that I felt that way as well before some facts came my way and found out how easy it is to use - on most occasions where editing is necessary, RAW processing is easier.<br>

Here's my understanding of jpeg and RAW data capture:<br>

Red Blue Green<br>

Channel Channel Channel<br>

8-bit jepg 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 million colors<br>

12-bit RAW 4,096 x 4,096 x 4,096 = 68.7 billion colors<br>

14-bit RAW 14,336 x 14,336 x 14,336 = 2.9 trillion colors<br>

My understanding here is that if you shoot jpeg, you are effectively throwing away all the additional potential colors depending on whether your camera shoots 12-bit or 14-bit RAW !<br>

And one might say - as I used to rather frequently - 16.7 million colors is way enough for me.<br>

Having said that ... I've been shooting weddings for over 10 years - was medium format, first digital wedding last year - and I must say that when I see a white dress with a few apparent blowouts, a few hotspots on the brides face, maybe an underexposed church shot, I simply LOVE to have ALL THOSE color nuances available to achieve corrections.<br>

In effect, taking the bride's dress as an example, a jpeg image would provide 256 nuances or shades of white and a 14-bit RAW image would provide 14,336 nuances or shades of white to achieve corrections. The same goes for any other instance of an image requiring post-processing editing.<br>

After having used RAW, I do not shoot any image whether for fun, family, vacation, AND weddings of course, using jpeg. That RAW image is straight from your camera's sensor, the equivalent of an untouched film negative.<br>

Please note that the image you see on your camera's LCD is NOT the RAW image you will see on your computer screen, it is a jpeg version which will most likely be somewhat different depending on the lighting conditions.<br>

As you can readily see, I am a convert <[;-0)))))<br>

P.S.: I can't tell how well that Red Channel, Blue Channel , etc ... formatting is going to look like.<br>

Ray<br>

http://raymondvaloisphotograph.com/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Hoi ...<br>

I have over 9,000 photos and they are all indexed using Photoshop Elements 7.0. It is excellent since you can name your photos based on a trip you took, a particular event, as well as add the names of the people in the photo.<br>

You can then create photo albums photos that have already been named as described above.<br>

If you have any kind of an IT background, the indexing feature has many characteristics of a relational database.<br>

I sometimes use Photoshop Elements to process photos but my favorite is Adobe Lightroom 2 for processing RAW files. Lightroom also has an indexing function but I find it somewhat awkward to use compared to Elements ... but then, someone else might find Lightroom great for indexing ... might be a matter of personal taste.<br>

Hope this helps !<br>

Ray<br>

<b>URL Signature deleted. Not allowed on photo.net.</b>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Sarah ...<br>

Shot over 75 rolls of 220 film, worked as "2nd shooter" with a photog buddy of mine (over 20 years experience) for two complete weddings, shot my nephew's wedding free of charge.<br>

This built up my level of confidence that I could take on a professionally paid shoot. A portfolio built during photog courses and other family shoots got me my first wedding shoot. And I haven't looked back.<br>

Unfortunately, the medium format equipment that I purchased new back in 1999 is gathering dust - Pentax 645N with all lenses and associated peripherals. The good news is that the weddings and other shoots have paid for the equipment with profits. All digital now and having fun. I have been in IT all my life so computer and photography coming together - well, I couldn't have planned it any better!<br>

Ray<br>

<p>You're shooting professionally so you are (most likely) shooting RAW. In all likelyhood, the DJ doesn't know what that means except that he can't project them without some kind of conversion ... if he says he can do it, you can explain that RAW images must be processed or adjusted before viewing.<br>

Ray</p>