Potpourri... - "You didn't hear about the polar bear?"
More on Ian McKellen's play next year, and the other plays that that particular theatre will be doing: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/93253.html
A really great article on Charlie Ross - lots of info, very enthusiastic! - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-01-oneman-starwars_x.htm?csp=34
Sounds like things are heating up for him - after all, he's going to be performing in NY for about 3 months. So maybe that's why I heard from his agent today... asking if I could supply some of the photos I took at higher resolution! (SQUEEEEE!!!) Unfortunately, I sent him the full-size photos... although, perhaps he wasn't looking in the right folders? Can't imagine why they'd need them bigger - they're sufficient resolution for an 8" X 10" right now, I think. Anyway... OMG!!!! *G* I didn't hear the message until this evening, so I'll call back tomorrow.
p.s. It feels to strange to get messages for "Rosa" - *L*!
(in case anybody reading this doesn't know, I kind of go by "Ros" (pronounced "Rawz"))
How wonderful! They are great pics.
His manager called you?!!! WOW, that is awesome!!!! *high fives*
I hope they use some of your stuff. That is just too cool!!! (yes, I'm reduced to 13-year-old speak) Squee!
Pretty neat! But, of course, now I'm wishing I'd taken higher resolution pics. *sigh* Ah, well!
I shoot everything RAW now... bigger files yes, but I only process the ones I want, and you never have to worry if you forgot about a white balance.
Really? What's this about white balance? Does it allow you to correct it more easily later?
Oh, you don't take a white balance before you shoot? I shoot with a Canon, but I'm sure your Nikon has the same sort of controls-- white presets for outdoors, tungsten, florescent, etc. When ever I shoot indoors, I always take a white balance -- fill an entire frame with a white (using a piece of card or paper) and then set the camera to 'custom white balance' so the whites will be correct for that setting.
In that first one I was in a friend's apt. and forgot to take a balance, the second one my friend took and underexposed it, and the third one the whites are blown away. All of these are easily corrected when you shoot raw. A jpeg file is about 3 mgs, a raw file is about 18 mgs so that tells you how much more information you are capturing. You will need a raw converter to 'develop' them, but that software most likely came with your camera. I believe Nikon's RAW format is proprietary, so you would have to use the software that came with your camrera... also, a bigger files mean a bigger CF card, so I jumped to a gig. Think of a RAW file as a digital negative.
It means a litte more work at the back end, (you don't just dump the jpgs, you have to convert the RAW files), but for me it's worth it. Even if you don't shoot raw, it's not a bad idea to get in the habit of checking your white balance.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you; I do set the white balance. I just didn't know what shooting RAW had to do with correcting it more easily. When the balance is still off, I usually correct it in Adobe. Is it done differently with RAW?
Scroll down to the shot of the dial to see the difference between RAW and JPEG. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/why_use_raw.html
The main difference is RAW captures what your sensor sees, JPEG compresses the information. Therefore, at the back end, you have more control over how the shot is processed. You can make corrections on the JPEG, but not to the extent you can in RAW, and the RAW files cannot be overwritten, the original information is always there. Adobe is pushing to get all camera manufacturers to standardize their RAW formats, and support DNG (I think it means digital negative) . Downside: more post-processing decisions (but I like that), bigger card required, longer write time (can be a factor if you are shooting in bursts). Upside: flexibility, more detail, easier to correct mistakes, white balance is not a concern should you forget.