adw

<p><img src="http://andywaterman.co.uk/system/media/pnet.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Winter Wedding in Ascot, UK - Worth the rain?</p>

I would forget the belly - she is pregnant after all. Instead, concentrate on her upper

arms, neck and chin, making sure her arms are not broadside to the camera, and her

chin is slightly pointing down or you are above it in each photo.

 

Best of luck.

Personally, in your boat, I would be much happier with just one main body and a backup, and

the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 instead of the two cheaper third parties.

 

It would save a lot of hassle and eventually (trust me) you will want to upgrade to the Nikon

anyway. The quality is about the same as the 50 and 85 primes you already have.

 

Its more expensive up front, but cheaper in the long run as you dont end up buying 2 lenses

to do the same job.

 

You could always use a second hand D70 to keep a long lens on if you do decide to keep it,

as I find I use a telephoto for less than 10% of a shoot anyway.

The Nikon 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are THE combination for almost all professional photography.

 

You could buy the Tamron or Sigmas as mentioned above, but trust me, sooner or later you

will want the real thing, and you'll have just wasted money on buying both the 3rd party lens

AND the Nikon.

 

If you want to save money, don't get the telephoto for now. It's nice to have but not required.

Other options might be a used 180mm prime lens.

I use a Canon G7 and love it - the G9 looks even better.

 

Apart from the Rioch and other novelty models, I think it is one of the only serious

pocket-sized cameras on the market. I'm a Nikon SLR user, so brand loyalty didn't

bother me either - I can still use my Nikon flashes with the G7 anyway.

I've recently bought a 17-55mm lens for my D200. It was very expensive, even used, but is

genuinely worth every penny.

 

I would much, much rather have the one 17-55mm with it's battle tank build quality and

constant f/2.8 than several sub-par lenses such as the 18-55 and cheap telephotos.

 

A fisheye, if worth it at all, should really be the last lens you buy - after you've already

bought the fast standard, fast telephoto and macro lenses.

As rick said, its to do with Gamma.

 

In Photoshop you can use View >> Proof Setup >> Windows RGB to preview colours as they

would appear on a Windows PC.

http://www.theimagefile.com/ - it works slightly differently but is a powerful tool and run by

a nice chap.

 

Very good service and quality in my experience.

I've recently made the switch to using a Macbook Air and a desktop, instead of my clunky 17"

laptop that was too small to be a desktop and too big to be portable.

 

I couldn't be happier with the MB Air, its so, so light and portable, has fantastic battery life

and the screen is just fine for viewing photos on the go.

HTML all the way. And valid, accessible HTML at that. Flash has its uses, but whole

websites is not one of them - its always so annoying for your back button to take you

back to Google instead of the homepage, not everyone is browsing on a computer with

Flash (at work, perhaps) and you will have weird text appearing in your search engine

listing, if any.

 

With modern XHTML and AJAX you can have a plain HTML site that looks just as good as

any flash site and still behaves properly.

 

Check out MooTools for Flash style effects all done in HTML. http://mootools.net/

Me too, come on Adobe, your not going to stand for that! Give me plugins or I switch...

I'd go with the 30mm 1.4 - you'll love extra speed and 30mm is pretty useful on a DX sensor.

17-55mm is awesome, can't fault it. I bought mine used and was watching prices for over a

year before I coughed up the cash - they didnt change at all in that time and I dont expect it

to loose much value within the next few years.

If your in the UK there's an opt-out telephone preferences list, that telecoms and marketeers

are obliged to follow. Of course, this does not stop the large numbers of unaccountable

indian companies...

Unless you anticipate a huge amount of use I would recommend buying the 70-200L used,

as used lenses don't really depreciate much and you can then decide later if you really cant

afford it.

 

Canon and most other multinational tech firms do tend to charge EU customers heaps more

than the US market, I guess they think we're used to it - Sony saw a bit of a backlash over

the PS3 prices recently though. French taxes are higher than UK so that doesn't help either.

Oh well, we earn more this year apparently...

I second the other recommendation. Im a Nikon / Mamiya user but have just bought a used

Canon G7 and am completely impressed with it. Its the only compact I have used that feels

like a serious camera in terms of build quality. I suspect the newer G9 is just as good,

although perhaps slightly less pocket friendly with its bigger grip. The noise at ISO 400 was a disappointing surprise given what I have been used to with the D200 though.

I agree. Jake Holt's website looks good, but it has poor navigation and is fairly slow. The

same design, drop down menus and even effects can be achieved with simple HTML and

perhaps AJAX.

In all honesty they probably know their a bit fat and when they look back at the photos they

will be looking at their happy memories - not their waist line and chinage.

Im fascinated that someone who's thinking of forking out over 5 grand for a camera is

concerned that they might have to purchase some more cheap batteries...

Even easier, do all your editing on one image from the batch then go back to the grid view

(press G) and do Copy Settings (shift command C) and select what gets copied then Paste

Settings on all the other images you want to use (shift command V).

I thnk your Pentax is fine - although the only Pentax's I've used are the 67 and K1000. The

photographer who recommended that to you is clearly unaware of Pentax and just doesn't

want to stray away from Nikon/Canon. I would be more worried about where you are going

to get albums from, etc than gear choices at this stage;

The owner is in Marshall, MI 49068 according to the website's whois. Unless you are close

by I wouldn't worry too much, he doesn't look much competition! Just make sure your

clients clearly know your address.

i commute between Europe and the UK, dont waste your breath asking around London! i

regularly fly with professional 120 film and have yet to notice ANY tangible effects with

modern medium, i wouldn't worry if i were you.

The RAW's you printed at the lab were probably only the embeded JPEG thumbnail that the file includes for viewing on the camera's rear display - lab's dont generally support RAW files. You have to open the file at home in Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto or whatever and save it as a jpeg with your adjustments. Make sure you install the Nikon raw convertor for photoshop if it doesnt already have Raw support.