Ok, so I hit the "reply" button then, so how the heck did that go to list?
:-) tan. -----Original Message----- From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR Omigosh! That is so many Bruce, you must be exhausted by the days end! I am finding myself shooting around 4-500, and delivering around 300-400 proofs to my clients. This compares to around 200 frames shot and 100-130 proofs delivered when shooting film. This is one of the reasons that I love digital for weddings, as I am offering my clients much better "bang for their buck" since switching. Here are two complete weddings (these are their online proof galleries) that I shot on the last couple of weekends - please do tell me if you feel that I should be shooting more, as I really don't want my clients to me "missing out" on things that I should be covering. http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/bean/index.htm http://www.tanyamayer.com/weddinggalleriesprivate/shilvock/shilvock/index.ht m I'd love to see some of yours if you have any online? BTW, are you heading to GFM? tan.x. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 9:16 AM To: TMP Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR Tanya, I'm curious as to how many frames/average you shoot on a wedding. Care to share? I am in the 600-800 range. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 3:31:57 PM, you wrote: T> Dario - I too, only shoot RAW now, having converted from Jpeg about 5 T> weddings ago! I use the Photoshop CS plug in and I am loving the T> results.... T> I have never used the Pentax RAW converter, and in fact, my Pentax T> Laboratory software still hibernates in its original packaging in the box T> that the *istD came in, and I don't expect him to come out... ever! T> tan. T> -----Original Message----- T> From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] T> Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:59 AM T> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T> Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR T> I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as T> the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on T> outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to T> justify, but true and repeatedly tested by yours truly. T> Of course, RAW shooting allows extended image tuning, but can this balance T> poor outlines and so much reduced storage capacity (= bigger files for T> smaller prints)? T> Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also T> allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the T> same) can you explain your thoughts on this? T> Thanks. T> Dario Bonazza T> ----- Original Message ----- T> From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM T> Subject: Pentax High End DSLR >> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has T> higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The T> primary reason is that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When T> I travel, I am already constrained by storage capacity. On my recent trip to T> California I took 3 gb -- enough for 212 raw images. (I shoot only in raw, T> so I hope no one responds about how many jpeg images fit on a card). I came T> home with space for only 20 images. I shot 192 images in one full day and T> two afternoons. >> >> Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I would T> try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could afford one. As we T> all know, the camera itself is only the beginning of the cost. >> >> Joe >> >>
