there are plenty of suggestions above for lenses. Having breifly looked through just shy of 1500 images from my 7 day photo trip, I would think that 90%+ were taken with the 24-125 on full frame. A very small number were taken with the 15-35 and even less with the 100-400 tele. I think most of the wide angle could have easily be done with 2 or 3 images and stitching (unless it involved running water). The telephoto was only used a very small number of times for wild life (birds aplenty, anything else - not so much on my trip.)

A tripod was usedprobably 75% of the time, and to get the 'mystical' flowing water you need a multi second exposure it is essential. but mine is carbon fibre and carried in its own shoulder bag so hands free. Andf thats important because if your photo trip is anything like ours there is a fair bit of walking and those carrying tripods 'loose' were at a distinct disadvantage.

Some tips from our experienced guide: all sand is black volcanic sand and extremely abrasive especially if backed up with 30mph winds. keep stuff in bags when you can. I carried most stuff in a backpack and asked the photography guide at each location what I should take for that shoot. I then transferred what I needed to a 'day' bag and went with just that.

A special warning: if you go to the 'ice' beach on the south coast the huge blocks of ice are amazing just to see. When you find a spot to want to photograph at, look behind you to make sure you have an uniterupted run up the beach. Every few waves there is a large one (the very ones you want to photograph water sweeping around the ice). Sometimes they are bigger than you think and you just grab your tripod and run! I personally saw Someone in another party adjacent to our group whi didn't. Suddenly realising he was in trouble he grabbed his camera and tripod turned and ran straight into an ice block, tripped and he and everthing he had including his backpack was completely submerged. They struggled to get him out as he panicked. Meant the whole party had to return urgently to hotel before he got hyperthermia.

Apart from being careful in an environment most of us are not familiar with it is truly an amazing place.

both previous posters have correctly confirmed you can't convert jpeg to an original raw format or content. (alhough there is a cludge and maybe an answer at the end of this post.)

Almost all (all?) RAW formats are proprietary and contain additional information in a structure the camera manufacturer decide. i.e. Canon RAW is .CR2 or CR3, Nikon is NX-D etc. There is a generic RAW which is adobe DNG.

Again, most if not all are variations of TIFF. The reason for this is that TIFF has a 16 bit structure which will store anything a modern digital sensor can produce (most modern sensors record up to 14 discrete bits which in round figures is 16,000+ shades per colour (R,G,B) so BIG files.

JPEG can store only 8 bits for each colour, a maximum of 256 shades - A huge difference from 14 bits.

So the JPEG image you have has been pre-processed by the camera from potentially 14 bit to 8 (and re-processed again if it has been modified in post processing.) It achieves this simplistically by merging nearby shades to 1 so a maximum of 16,000 shades per RGB colour is reduced to a maximum of 256. The more shades there were originally, the more combining is done. So the compression is 'lossy' and the data is lost forever.

Does this matter? Probably not if you were happy with the original image, and display on a screen or print (very few monitors support even full JPEG colour space and no printing that I know of.)

It does matter if you are unhappy with the image though. With a RAW image you can almost invariably recover burn out highlights or blocked in shadows but you can't if the detail has already been removed by the inbuilt camera processing.

So back to your priginal request: you can easily convert 8 bit JPEG to 16 bit TIFF using any convenient method (ie open jpeg in FastStone image viewer then immediately save in TIFF.) Then any RAW processor should be able to import the TIFF as a RAW (ie Adobe Camera RAW 'open as'

What you will never be able to do is recover the original RAW 16 bit content as that was removed in-camera as the great quote above 'you can't take that and create the original ingredients (RAW) to prepare the meal differently'.

Topaz have recently announced AI JPG to RAW converter. https://topazlabs.com/getting-started-with-topaz-jpeg-to-raw-ai/ which may help - download the 30 day trial and see what it does. Here is a review
(review: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/topaz-jpeg-to-raw-ai-review/)

Hope that helps

hear, hear!

I knew that a white or grey image would be fine but had not 'registered' the neutral bit.

Changing tack just a little: I often use the user set colour balance with my Canon camera - just take an image with large white or grey area and select that as white balance source.

But on a city coach tour it was obvious the glass of the coach was tinted a strange green colour from the first image I took. The option of using a grey card was a total non-starter and a few quick test pictures confirmed that none of the colour settings of the camera would work.

So I took a photo of the light grey tarmac road through the tinted window and used that as reference - worked a treat! Now the chance of the road being a true neutral18% grey was nil but it was near perfect for colour balance for the rest of the trip and only a few images needed balancing with the LR eye dropper tools.

So coming back to the meat of this post - neutral (or near enough) is the key

I never knew that, and it actually sounds reasonable. I thought they painted them white so the photographer can show "Look at me, I've got a canon lens that cost a shed load!" (just in case they didn't see the Canon 'billboard' on the strap) And Sony followed suit to state 'we got pricey lenses too"

Well that's my long held theory down the pan!

Joking aside, its a stunning lens for portraiture, compressing landscapes, and astro with such a wide aperture. Try the planet conjunction tonight with it at about 100 - 125. With the late blue light sky you'll maybe get away with f2.8 10s at 6400 ish?

Sounds complicated but often describing detail takes longer than doing - just look at almost any camera manual - in fact is very straightforward. Another advantage I found over a built in GPS on the EOS 6 was there is no startup time for the GPS as the portable is on all the time

Without doubt a built in, or attached GPS unit is easier but this works with any camera and any gps device that outputs gpx.

I use a generic process which works happily with any camera or phone. As pointed out previously for phone only imagery there are plenty of self-contained on-phone options. But when on an 'adventure' I will often have my main camera, a backup body, and use the phone as well.

As I have a Garmin Montana and recently a Garmin Fenix 6 GPS, both with free Open Street map maps for map display I use them.

Whichever I am using I start recording a track (record track on Montana, or start Walk on Fenix) as I go out.

On return I transfer images to the computer, and use the free Garmin Basecamp application to upload the tracks.

With JPG images I just select the track in basecamp then click 'geotag photos', select the photo folder, enter any time shift, then go, and depending on number of images/ speed of computer/ time length of track a few sconds or minutes later all are geotagged. For multiple cameras just repeat with each folder of photos. I don't know if Basecamp recognises RAW as I haven't tested it.


For RAW I always import into LR classic and read all images into a project structure of the form <event><camera><date>

I upload the track, and then export from Basecamp as GPX format (file|export)

In lightroom I use a brilliant Geoencoding plugin from Jeffrey Friedl (http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps_) (almost free, he asks for a paypal contribution if you find it useful and from my view a £$15 contribution was much cheaper than a dedicated, one camera only, gps attachment that sucks battery.

I either geotag each project 'folder' by date (if I'm downloading daily on a trip), by camera (if I forgot to sync time), by project (if I remembered to sync!)


On the question of time: Obviously it is necessary for camera and gps to be in time sync - even a few seconds can have a large position difference eg if flying or even cycling. If you are well organised then just set a display on your gps and set the camera/s time to that before you go out. If less well organised, just take a photo of the gps clock at any time that day (even if it is later that evening when you upload the photos to your computer.) A quick look at the exif data will tell you the gps <> camera time difference and both Basecamp and Jeffrey's plugin allow you to enter that delta. Obviously if you have more than one camera/ phone in use you may have to run the geotagging for each separately if you forget to sync (as I invariably do.)

On the question of Garmin Fenix: although I use it for exercise and occasional navigation, I really bought this for geotagging. The 6 has a number of advantages if you looking. It uses gps, glonass, and galileo, so has a much better chance of getting signal in difficult conditions. Also rechargeable battery life lasts about a week. A bigger screen would be better for navigation, and I would never use fo for more traditional transport navigation. But any GPS you have will work as long as you can get tracks exported in gpx format.

Once the images are geotagged you can of course display in google earth or other suitable programs.

There are obviously other solutions, but if you already have a Garmin GPS, and take JPG, or shoot RAW and LR, then I can confirm this really works and is straightforward

Hope that helps

never seen one those calendars - most of what i've seen are not necessarily what I would show my mum

Thanks - think

You just made a serious error of judgement

You assumed the driver could read a squiggly lines on a map! As a retired land surveyor I can advise that before satnavs, google maps etc, only a small proportion of people could read and navigate with a map - and most of those had a military/ working background that needed it, or were ethusiastic outdoors people.

Today, without a navigation device or app it seems many cannot get from A to A+ let alone B without voice prompts and 'auto reroute'


And as a Murphy - why is it my fault?

A fwe of other things not included in the equation, again from my personal experience

- the OP assumes that all the chemicals will be used to full capacity, I seldom exposed enough film for that or stored film in the fridge until I had sufficient
- people almost forget the event by the time I had D+P completed
- one of the biggest problems for me as a 'generalist' (grandchildren one day, landscapes the next etc) was often having not having the optimum ASA film in camera

I revisited shooting film recently, because I always wanted to have a go at large format. I experimented with a canon 35mm body to use my EF lenses. A soon worked out - for me - although gratifying to still be able to do everything myself, a return to film was a non starter. It just took too long from shutter to result, and when I factored in a used Bronica + couple of lenses, it was cheaper to buy a new EOS 5D body!

Again for me, like driving a manual gearbox car, shooting manual with a modern DSLR etc etc, shooting film is something I'm pleased that I know how to do and still can, but it won't replace the convenience / ease of use/ speed of workflow of a DSLR

Can't agree more. Previous versions often 'blue screened' but I have a W10 system which I use for CCTV and email and I can't recall the last time it crashed.

For those who don't like the tiled, smart-phone-like start menu, I always suggest Classic Shell (http://classicshell.net/ .) This free application allows you to replace the menu with W7 style, and switch easily between them.

The downside of W10 for old applications is that Microsoft - Like Apple - have an increasingly difficult time keeping backwards compartability with older applications and hardware. In addition, new features on new system encourage upgrade. So the problem is really Microsoft moving their system forward, and Adobe refusing to update old software.

To be fair, I also understand why Adobe brought in the subscription model - it is such a great application there was huge piracy of Photoshop (and perhaps lightroom also.)

Unlikely I know, but it is a great shame Adobe's lowest subscription model (just shy of £10 in UK) includes so much. That is positively a bargain for a pro, but for many amateurs, especially those on a modest fixed income, it may not be. Why not a £6 sub for Photoshop only or Lightroom? There is a discount for Students, why not one for those on a pension?

But your now a miserable b%%gg%r!

agreed - I use the canon x1.4 III with the canon 100-400L II and the results are excellent - even enlareged to equivalent 600mm, better than a Sigma 150-600 to by a noticeable margin - BUT it did cost a smidge more And its a lot smaller and a lighter to hump arounf

I used tp be concerned I was a bit of a hoarder. No longer!! thank you UHH contributors for illuminating me that after 70 odd years I am a mere beginner at collecting 'precious sh*t' as a good friend once described all the crud he had in his garage.

On a more serious note, I came to 2 major conclusions:

* If all the precious sh*t that 'might be useful one day' stored in all the garages, sheds, workshops, spare rooms etc was sent for recycling (sale or meltdown) then we would all have so much space we could probably downsize easily.
* In UK we have the 'car boot sale' where 100s and sometimes 1000s of people take their surplus stuff to sell. I think its all the same stuff!! Most of it is cr*p that Someone buys one week and is selling it the next.

In my own way as I get older and size and bulk of carry stuff is an issue I have disposed of all my redundant camera equipment and now have just 3 setups: FF EOS R with just 3 lenses (oh, and 2 EF lenses that will be really useful I'm sure); EOS M50 with 3 lenses for when I travel light; and EOS M100 always in the car. See, I told you I had rationalised :) And 2 tripods, numerous filters, etc etc, Just enough to get by really,


I have solved the multi charger problem though: I have a 65w PD QC 4 port charger; USB battery chargers for camera batteries (typically less than £10 on ebay); usb to 12v cables for the 2 items that need 12v. So with 1 charger, 4 or 5 leads, 2 camera battery chargers, all of which go into a single plastic zipup bag, I charge everything, from my dell laptop, to phone, tablet, cameras, GPS, and even power a wifi booster (obviously not all t the same time :)

True!

depends if it has a 'floating' element in the lens.

I had a new Sigma (35mm I think) pancake lens with a pronounced rattle. I bought it from a reputable dealer.

I would have returned it but it was 25mls away and I was going to a photo show where Sigma had a stand.

Spoke to the guy on the stand and he picked it up, rattled it like a pair of maracas and said it was completely normal. He explained that the floating element took up position when powered and sure enough as soon as on their camera body (as was with mine) no rattle, and perfect focus.

So before you 'give the seller a piece of your mind' check the lens doesn't have a floating element; that the rattle disappears when powered up on a camera; and that focusing over the range is as expected for speed and accuracy. If in doublt phone Panasonic UK.

Worth looking at the seller feedback also and if plenty of good feedback as seller, then it could have just been damaged in transit. Still his problem to fix but if s/he looks a good seller don't assume the worst?