@ ratto - Provia 100F III series isn't the same as Velvia. It's a very different emulsion. I do like Velvia (50 - also III series), but the Provia 100F and 800F are far better at this moment imo, unless you need Velvia for a specific reason. But a velvia 100 sound like a really ridiculous thing imo. It's not the speed that matters, but the equipment ;) But that's a whole other discussion I guess...

Hey! Love those shots! I guess in shot #1 the "S" stands for 'small' and not for 'super', right ? ;)

Holy smoke! I'd kill for weather like that....it's been above 25 degrees Celcius for almost two months now with only 10 minutes of rain weeks ago. And since last thursday it's been mid 30's all the time (around 95F) with almost 40 (100+) here on wednesday and thursday. Hottest days ever recorded. Rain....can't we exchange some ? I'll give you guys some sun if you can send me some rain ;) Summer is fun, but 100F+ in the shadow is too much (and above 90F after midnight)..... I almost forgot: Great shot! Well done, hehehe ;) Gonna turn off my pc again ;)

Don't worry, the floor is already soaked from my drooling ;)

It takes more than just setting a switch to +/-1 ;) Actually it's only meant to give you the ability to bracket your shots (which means creating a series of increased and decreased exposure, so you get at least one shot with the perfect exposure). But you can set it in smaller steps than +/-1 I assume ? +1 is a pretty big step. But anyway, if you are looking for high contrast photos, you shouldn't be doing it with that setting. The idea is to have your camera meter only your subject and not make an average reading for the whole photo - afterall high contrast is the same as underexposure ;) With the standard/matrix (or whatever it's called) setting, the camera will try to get everything correctly exposed. But that's not possible, it's just one of those 'brand X washes your white clothes even whiter!" kind of things :) By calculating the overall best setting, it will have to make an average between so many things (dark shadows, mid tones, sunlit areas, sunlit reflective areas, etc) that nothing eventually is done right. It'll make your pictures overall dull and grey-ish. So by being able to set it to center/spot metering, the camera only picks the center of the picture (like a face/person) and it will not care about the rest. Now if your subject is brightly lit and the background is less well lit, the brightly lit subject will be correctly exposed and appear normal, and thus the background will be.....yes.....darker, because the camera uses what it metered from the subject. (just imagine shooting someone's face lit by sunlight indoors). That's what gives you the foundation for a high contrast picture. You can also take this outdoors, but you need some assistance (I'm always alone, so I haven't been able to do this much). Fashion photographers use very bright lights to simulate extra sunlight (the color/tone of the light is very natural) or use a gold or silver reflector to reflect the sunlight onto the subject. (works less good, but is cheaper, easy to carry along and doesn't require power). As long as the background of the shot is far away (so that it doesn't get lit by the lights), the camera will make the subject look normally lit and the background darker, with more contrast. One of my heros is Mario Testino, who almost always uses this technique in his photos. It's really, really easy, but the equipment is expensive and together with the powersource, cables, etc, you'd need a few extra people to help you out :D But believe me, like this even the biggest idiot can make fantastic high contast photos! ;) Perhaps I should write a little guide about that for r'osity....

One of the most beautiful shots I've seen in the last couple of months! (both off and online) Really impressive, Donald!!

Yeah, although the only lenses that I ever tried that are equally good at all apertures are the Nikkor 2.8 ED lenses :) But at apertures lower than f8 most other/less expensive lenses have a difference between the sharpness and 'lightness' in the center and edges of the picture. And that does get a bit 'enhanced' with a converter....especially a not so good one :)

Converters really gives you a loss of quality, because it contains a lens of itself and they should be avoided at all cost. They least bad ones are as expensive as a good lens anyway. The only reason to own a converter that I can think of would be for wild life or sports photography, for those times when a 600mm camera just isn't big enough. But just make sure you make a sharp photo with your normal lens and cut away the 'border' afterwards....the enlargements from a normal photo would be far superior! :) Also, don't forget the adjustments it will make to your lens. You might turn a 50-500/f5 Sigma lens into a 100-1000 lens, but the lowest aperture will also become f/10. Just imagine shooting a race car or a bird with Velvia at f/10. Since most lenses are only best between f8 and f16 or so, you'll end up with f32 to make the shots look good. The f10 side of the lens won't be very impressive anyway (like my Sigma 28-80/2.8). Tubes are handy things, since they only adjust the focal length of your lens and don't affect the quality. You will need to manually correct the camera's readings though, but they could work out very well. Especially handy for macro photography. Maybe they look kind of lame, but they are very underestimated :) Hope that helps a bit :)

Know what you mean, having a that feeling too for the second time this year. The only thing that helps me to get rid of that 'block' is going outside, without camera or anything else. No screen-staring for at least a week. Just looking at things, people, the sky, whatever gives me new energy. And when I've seen enough the ideas start coming. :) Especially with my design work I just need to get away from the screen as much as possible, cause it really does make your brain become incredibly passive. Doodling on paper and working out designs on paper alone is the only solution.

Don't laugh....Smart is going to release a superb roadster very soon....uses very little fuel and the car above is incredibly safe :) Anyway, great to see you've been to my little country ;) Shame they send you (like all the other tourists) to the Zaanse Schans, cause we have much prettier towns over here, especially for photographers! Amsterdam is a great experience, but terrible for photos.

What's this seniors thing ? I've never heard of it before over here....anyone wanna explain ? ;)

But I'm just thinking 'out loud' here.....just wondering myself how you could get into this without too much trouble. Although if you're never prepared to take a risc, you won't get anywhere. You can't just first become a top photographer and then accept your first offer. ;)

Okay, let me rephrase it then ;) I mean that there are a lot of people who have a friend or family member take some photos, just cause they can't afford the 2000 buckazoids. So you could always go along as a 'back up photographer' and tell them that if it does work out well, they can get prints as a bonus. Know what I mean ? Like you say, even if you are free, people still will be dissapointed if you miss a certain moment, so you could sort of 'abuse' the wedding for free practice ;) Just whatever it takes to feel you comfortable - no pressure. Btw, wedding photography must be great fun, cause you can walk anywhere and ask anything you like and nobody will mind. Unlike street photography where 9 out of 10 times people are offended or rude ;)

Video shoot, assistents, make up ? No way! Photographers just come alone and never ever stay at parties during the evening. And what pressure ? That more like 'beginners anxiety', cause you (me too ;) are afraid that you'll miss some big moment. BUT in reality, if you wouldn't be ready, you just open your mouth and everything will be on hold till you are ready with your film. That always happened once or twice to every marriage I been to :) But my idea is that you could be a lot cheaper during the first few tries and explain people that. A lot of people can't afford any half-decent photographer at all, so they'd be more than happy to take a chance with you. Let's face it guys, most marriages out there are all the same, so the only pressure is just cause you haven't tried it before. Like with....uhmmm....well... lots of other things ;)

Well, some very average photographers over here (good pros, but nothing really special) indeed charge more than $1000 for a day shooting, which is shooting at a park or some special location for 30 minutes to an hour, shooting at the ceremonie and reception/dinner, but not at any party afterwards. And for a normal album they charge at least $1500. Or some charge 750 for the shooting, but more for the album. I'd love to try wedding photography some day for a cheaper price (so one small add would mean a lot of response, cause many can't afford those ammounts), BUT I have my doubts about this 'live action shooting'. Not sure if I can deliver a constant quality to give people a series of quality shoots for all the events. But most of all, I'm kind of worried about where to get good quality prints. Most really good labs are far away from here & I do need to be sure that my work will be treated carefully. Michele, I had this idea, but haven't really don't it yet. Maybe you like to try it as well :) The idea is to try out wedding photography at two or more weddings, as practice. I'd place an add for a free shoot, except I'd charge them the cost of the material I would use - but cause it's for practice (serious, but still with a risc) in return for the cheap costs they would have to take the risc of ending up with completely failed shots. I just don't know what to do with the presentation. Perhaps I could offer them to print it again for what it'll cost me and buy an album, etc. You know, with two tries you should be able to tell what you have to do or not do during a day like that. Shouldn't be too hard to get a lot of experience with two days of shooting, don't you think ? Any ideas ?