Anyone got any photo question?

Hey Mike thanks for that link to the white paper, since I've never shot with a 30 or 40d I'd just be making guesses as to the differences and not having read that WP yet I'd guess that the biggest differenses would be build quality, materials, focus speed, sensor size and quality. After that it's all the bells and whistles.

Remember taking a pro-sumer digi cam to the motocross races on a regular basis is a sure way to shorten it's life. When I shot with Canon AE-1's I sent a fairly new one into Canon for service, they sent me a new one with a note saying mine looked older than an AE-1 could possibly be.

No my dad was Ray Buckley

Bring a tripod, try AV mode, f4.0 ISO 800 -1/2 to -1 stop on the ambient and then use just enough flash to brighten things up a little but not so much that you lose the feel of the club.

If it's dark and you want to get artsy try f11, 1/4 shutter ISO 100 flash set to standard compensation, move the camera during the exposure to get some light streaks, it'll look MTV

Yeah but look who got to go to Europe to collect the award, so now who's the show off? Huh?

Congrats by the way.

Hey BARS you're my star pupil, those are really good, so much better than the first samples you posted, keep up the good work and thanks for sharing those.

The one that's showing is nice, try fixing the links on the others

I dunno, stuff on ebay's a gamble, I'd hate to say go for it and then have it be junk.

[quote="Homey":z8loazfh]Ok Paul since you asked first. I have a few serious questions for you..

First is I want to hear your opinion on RAW VS Jpeg?

And Second what is your standard post processing ? A; before you post on the web and B; before you send the chosen image to the client.

Just curious ya know..[/quote:z8loazfh]

jpegs are faster workflow wise, raw makes a better photo. I shoot jpegs for MX raw for architecture.

Zero post processing for A and B, what the clients get is what comes out of the camera, well once in a while I'd assign an Adobe98RGB profile to the files to make the colors brighter but that can be too saturated for conversion to CMYK.

Here's a shot of Chad Reed that I just pulled off my site, this is how they look right out of the camera, go ahead, click on it, check out the full size 16.7 megapixel version.
[img:z8loazfh]http://www.buckleyphotos.com/reed-xgames07-0176.jpg[/img:z8loazfh]

[quote="FreshTopEnd":24dwkaim]I get f8 at 1/1000, at 600mm from the file data. Is that the 2X on the 300, Paul?

Paul, are you primarily shooting manual exposure when you commit to jpeg?

One of the issues I had and still am working through with the 300 is how narrow the depth of field can be sometimes as you get close.[/quote:24dwkaim]

Right you are Mike, that's the 2x, it's not as sharp as a straight 600 but then it doesn't cost 7,200. Some of my favorite shots are close up action with the 300 @ 2.8-4.0 but when I shoot like that the keeper percentage goes down fast. I do like the way backgrounds look at 2.8 though.

The reason I used 1000 ISO on such a nice bright day was that the 300 with the 2x extender really needs a small aperture to stay sharp, had I been able to get close enough to that turn to use my 300 alone I probably would have lowered the ISO down to 200 or 400.