Just did this real quick, so the "corrected" shot is a little rough. This is one of the shots I was talking about when writing to Mike about the D100's inconsistent metering. You can see the very underexposed shot on the left. But I shot the image in RAW mode so I was able to adjust exposure while importing it. I know I'm new to digital SLRs and this may be old hat for some, but this blows me away. Yea, RAW mode is storage space hungry (on D100 each image is about 9.5MB), but it is worth it. To pull this level of detail out without serious image degradation. Woah! This is amazing for events where you may not be able to look at the LCD after every shot and re-shoot anything that didn't come out exactly as you'd hoped. -=>Donald

Which is why I have been shooting on the D7 using raw mode. I like being able to tweak an image before I take it into PS. And yes the size is killer 25 images on a 256MB flash card. I justify this by saying thats all you can get on an average roll of film anyway..... What I need to do is invest in 1 or 2 more cards preferably 512MB cards.

These 1gb cards are nice ... 107 RAW mode files. 'course, their cost is killer too. Saw they now have 2gb and 4gb cards. The 4gb cost as much as a dslr camera body. Guess you have little choice if you shoot raw mode with a 11mp EOS 1DS or 14mp Kodak 14n. -=>Donald

Impressive. [More babes!]

gotta love the digital photographer's excuses that digital photography is cheaper than shootin' film...

Hey B-P-M, it is cheaper! Lets say you take 20,000 images witht he D1x and you buy 2 1gig cards with it, and you take the same amount with an F5 SLR. Lets do the math... D1x - $3800 (body only) 2 1gig cards - $600 ($299.95 each out of this months PC Photo) Total before enlagerements or paper $4400 Nikon F5 - $1800 (body only) 833 rols of 24 exposure film - $1666 ($2 per roll) Developing for Slide - $9996 ($12 per roll) Total Before Prints - $13462 20,000 shots is half the expected life of either of these cameras. So which is cheaper? I haven't even gotten into the lenses, tiem in the lab for film vs time in PhotoShop. This is just body cost and original processing only.

gotta love the digital photographer's excuses that digital photography is cheaper than shootin' film... It is....up to a point.... But lets be honest here..... photography is not a cheap hobby by any means, no matter which way you are going.... digital or film. I have to say that in the 1.5 years that I've had my digital I have shot close to 6000 images. Yes I've saved quite a bit of money not haveing to pay for processing by a lab. But lets also consider the cost of ink, paper, and printing digital images can be costly too. I like to think that I'm not biased against or for either film or digital.... I love and embrace both... Ryan sometimes I wish you weren't so damned biased..... and I say that with love and a smile on my face.... I do understand your love of film and the darkroom....but you do have this tendancy to trash anything digital.... :~p

Are we doing any of this to save money?

Save money.....? Now that would be a joke....considering how much I have spent in the last year on scanners, lenses, developing, film, paper, ink..... and how much I need to spend for the other things I still want.... new printer, more lenses, lighting equipment, darkroom equipment, etc. etc..... My husband is praying that someday I'll be able to make some money to pay for this photo preoccupation I have.

I actually did the math, and for me digital is far cheaper than film. Take the last few days for instance. I shot the HIN auto show, Bon Odori Buddhist Festival and Chinatown Seafair Parade (those last 2 I shot today). I took close to 900 shots at all 3. In film cost, that's 25 rolls at around $125-150 or so. Add in just processing, no proofs and that's an additional $150 or more. Add proofs and that could go as high as $200-250. So, 2 day total for this weekend would have racked up about $275-400. Granted, if I was shooting film I would have cut myself off at around 12 rolls for the weekend. Which is something else to consider. The freedom to keep shooting that digital gives you. Yea, there is a large cost up front, but with the way I shoot events and street photography, it's a cost that would be/will be quickly recouped in film and processing fees alone. Printing fees (paper, ink, etc.) are really neglible because you only really print what you want. Plus, when I get a print made I do it at a pro lab. Paying $7-20 for a 8" x 10" (depending on what I want). For some things, film still can't be beat (which is why I still have and will keep my film body). -=>Donald