yep the plate has been a many failed photo shot, thanks for the heads up

Yes, you can easily reach that cost, but I can also easily imagine that cost in a reef tank after you factor in cost of bulb replacements, consumable media, salt, fish, corals, etc, over the years. I consider myself fairly serious and shoot semi-professionally on the side (weddings, family portraits, etc) and don't have anywhere near $100K worth of equipment. I wrote off/claimed all of my photog equipment for my business 5 years ago and I clocked in somewhere near $20K. Again, I haven't had to replace any equipment or buy anything in over 4 years. It all still works and I'm still using it to do family portraits and the odd wedding. 5 years into reefing and I'm still buying $#!t for my tank :lol:

+1. Have all my lens and don't see myself upgrading the body for a long time however, for the tank the spending continues...

Well I use a Nikon D7000 and have a collection of lens (none professional unfortunately) 18-200 vr, 70-300vr, 50mm 1.8, 28-80afd and finally bit the bullet and bought a macro lens a Tamron 90mm and all I have to say is WOA...

http://oi39.tinypic.com/206z9dv.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/rtgupe.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/b3rihh.jpg

http://oi43.tinypic.com/2gwsxo0.jpg

Please note these pics are taken under LED's which I find extremely difficult to capture and they have not been edited...

I love this new lens :)

Best advise ever!!!:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:: clap2:

I agree.

People who disagree really have a weak understanding of what RAW really is and affords the user; see below


While your overall advice is good, and that's because it's aimed and composed primarily for the "noobie" photographers in this forum, you're exclusion of the entire RAW format is fundamentally flawed.

You do know your stuff when it comes to photography, i'd be the first to admit that, as i've been lurking on this forum for a short while (was a user on Canreef many years ago, though). But you completely lack the understanding and thus, the benefits of using RAW.

Mind you, when I started shooting with DSLRs, I stuck with JPEGS for a few years. But when I read up on and started employing RAW, my photography game got exponentially better. I don't think you're there yet...maybe?


no it doesn't! you're giving misinformation. RAWs collects all the information from the sensor, that's it. And for the record, nothing compares to the processing ability of the human brain (ie. when working with RAW files, post-process, i mean) and the processing ability of a computer when dealing with RAW is SO MUCH more multiplied than the processing available to you on even the most expensive Nikon or Canon SLR on the market.


they're larger b/c they have ALL the light information the sensor received when the shutter button was pressed.....why is it harder to work with? coz they're larger? lol

and no, you don't need special software to read RAW files....if you're on Win7 or 8, it's very easy. Also, Nikon and Canon come with software to view RAW

working with RAW is more involved, of course! BUT if you value higher-quality images, you need to go the RAW route at some point. And yes, you need special software. But it's no harder than Googling "Adobe Lightroom" and buying and installing the software haha

Anyone with a brain can process a RAW file better (on a post-process level ie. using Adobe Lightroom in your office while sipping some coffee) than ANY SLR out there right now.

the only part of your post I completely agree with, wholeheartedly

z

Gotta love that need people have to bump up old threads to only attempt to discredit someone on silly technicalities while offering zero new advice or any for that matter in regards to the subject. I like the phrase "in layman's terms", it's something I've become quite good at over the years in my profession and while perhaps a lot of what is said isn't necessarily 100% accurate it gets the point across without sounding like a complete tool or making someones else's eyes cross.

RAR files require post processing, sorry but they do. A RAR file contains only what the sensor recorded, nothing less and nothing more. Windows can only allow you to preview the file provided your camera format is supported and you have the plugin installed. You can't edit them with Windows alone nor can you convert them to jpeg so specific software is absolutely needed. Software may come free with your camera but ultimately you get what you pay for. RAW files are harder to deal with, not because they are larger but because you can't print them, post them, send them or share them with others, it's just bits and bites until you process it into jpeg. So unlike jpeg you're forced to manually process every image to take, that's harder than not having to do anything... During manual processing of RAW files you'll end up tuning the image to your monitor, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but if your monitor isn't calibrated properly your images will suffer.

So if you really feel the best advice for new photographers is to shoot in RAW so be it. It only enforces the act of relying purely on post processing rather than real photography, an art near extinction for that very same attitude. RAW has it's purpose, no doubt but there's a learning curve involved and I don't agree it's a good idea for beginners.

A good read on Ken Rockwell's website for anyone interested in reading all about the boring specifics of JPEG vs RAW

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

what kinda clown fish is the black and yellow ?

not trying to discredit you, phelps.....don't take it so personal.

I don't need to offer new advice, you did a good job of doing that in your post! (see my original post where I commend you for that....did you not see that?)

You should always try to be accurate and deliberate in what you say, even if you're trying to convey it in "laymans terms" Otherwise, you open yourself up to people like me who will call you out on it. Unless you don't care, then I can't help you, and you can carry on.


I never said my advice is for "new photographers is to shoot RAW"...maybe try reading my post again? My post was in your response assertion that RAW was a waste of time...nothing else

Newbies can and should start with JPEG until they feel comfy, but they shd aim to use RAW at some point as it's far superior at the end of the day.

man, there is just so much wrong with this particular post, i can't even begin to comprehend. But i will. You really will never comprehend what working with RAW files can really do for your photography game, and especially how relatively easy it is to work with and incorporate into your photo-processing workflow.

And, of course, RAW files need processing. I never said they don't! lol ..read my post again? Why else are they called RAW!? My point is that processing of a RAW file is easy if you actually sit down and have everything set up (but obviously more involved than just just leaving your camera to process and spit out a JPEG you can use in like 5 seconds after you press the shutter release).

...and the processing of a RAW file on a computer by a human being is immeasurably better than the processing done on a camera. It's obvious you're not as techno-savvy as the next person (ie. me?)...it's all good. to each his own, right?

stick to what you know. and for you, if it's relying solely on the processing power of your camera alone, then that's cool beans, man. Leave the more complex stuff to the more tech-savvy people, i guess

I love Ken's site, really, I do.

But if you've noticed, he writes for the "layman" ...people who want the bottom line wrt new cameras and lenses. And his opinions are just that: opinions, and directed at most photographers out there, who happen to be just amateurs and who don't give two craps about JPEG vs. RAW: they want their picture now, and they want it "perfect". For them, JPEG is the obvious answer (and yours).

no argument there.

z