Good attitude. Watches are difficult to shoot. I used to shoot some, and an older guy once showed me (in a magazine ad) that it took 7 separate shots of a watch to get it right. Patience, patience, patience...

You should consider what happens when the external HD fails, as they all eventually do. Either buy two and keep one as a backup of a backup, or start copying the images onto DVD's. Disk format's change, even DVD formats change. Keeping all of your images where you can find them is a problem for every digital photographer. I now store copies on a second HD and send it off site. It ain't perfect, but better than nothing. Consider the worst and plan for the best.

Yes. Good lens for sports.

The problem is that people will not pay enough for it. I am an Adobe Certified Instructor in Photoshop and have a Masters degree in digital imagery and like to be paid for my time. Restoration may take hours and hours, and clients are cheap. I did antique restoration for a while, and gave it up. Now just do it for me or friends. So I would say there is a limited market for it.

Moire is caused by a fine repeating pattern like some fabrics and the lighting. Some software will limit the effect and some camera software will limit it, but it is always a nuisance. Even medium format digital backs have the problem. A lot of photographers try to not shoot fabrics that create moire. Sometimes on the evening news you can see it in the suits the newscasters wear.

Once you have it, there are some techniques to make it not as visible. Over sharpening makes it worse. A soft blur may make it disappear. Google "Moire" with your camera brand and some discussions should come up.

Depends on who refurbished it and if it has a warranty.

I do not dispute that some larger prints are intended to be viewed far away. My point is that you intend a large print to be in your living room for example and you are looking for the "WOW" factor, then you have to print at a higher resolution. It is the difference of looking OK and looking astonishing. A couple of years when writing a book, I had to scan about 70 5" x 17" silver nitrate negatives. To maximize the potential resolution, I scanned them at 4600 DPI. One of them was later printed at 30 inches by 21 feet at 240 DPI. Even at that size, you could recognize the faces of the people in the picture. A test print run at 80 DPI yielded readily recognizible things in the print, but people's faces were blurry.

It depends on what you want out of the image. Research does show that a billboard is printed at 72 DPI. Print your print on your home printer at 72 DPI.

Lexjet sells a translucent silk that is intended for rear lighting. Looks incredible. Call Lexjet in Atlanta.

The major difference between JPEG and RAW is the ability to compensate for under or over exposure. In the old days negative film would permit you to "fix" under or over exposure by 2 stops up or 2 stops down with good results. Transparency film (slide film) used by most pros must be exactly on to get a printable image. JPEGS are like transparency film, in that is little or no ability to compensate for an under or over exposure. There are other differences, but this is the major one.

I have noted some disagreement over the DPI size needed for a large print. True, you can print it as small as 50 DPI, but you will be able to truly see a difference. I have gone as small as 180 DPI, but you will see a difference between this and 240 DPI. I suggest you experiment and make up your own mind.

I specialize in printing very large pictures. I own an Epson 9800, 44 inch wide, on roll paper, and print large pictures all the time. My largest has been 44 x 96, but I have had labs go up to wall size. To do it right, start with the RAW image. When converting (developing it), set it to do the largest image size at 300 DPI, 16 bit color. Once in Photoshop, clean it up, and save it as a TIFF. Find someone with re-sizing software, like OnOne's Perfect Size (previously Genuine Fractals). Use the software to size the image up to the size you want. Caution, as the largest is about 800% from your developed RAW image. It is essential that you work with a RAW image converted to been a TIFF, and not a JPEG. JPEGs that have been converted up, will look like crap. The resultant image will be very large, about 180 megabytes. THEN sharpen it Get on to media like a CD or DVD. Then get it to a lab to print. I have seen some things from Costco that look OK. Some FedEx stores have large HP printers. you will get a better result if you download the print profile for the printer and paper that you know the lab will use, and set your image to that profile before you save it. Depending on where you live, you may be able to find a pro lab. Fast Signs has locations all over the country, and, depending on the type of paper or media you want to use, they may be a good choice. Good Luck.

Most labs that produce very large prints will print a small piece of your photo at size for you to examine.

Try KEH.com in Atlanta. Pro source. Very accurate and explain their ratings.

I have a picture overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge, taken in bright sun, and it appears there no cars on the bridge. The shot was taken ASA 25 film, and then the film speed was slowed to 1.25 using ND filters and pulled to stops, requiring a long exposure, and no single car driving on the bridge exposed the film. You can accomplish the same with filters on a digital camera. Good luck and have fun.

The one thing all of the photos is they were taken by photographers who are now dead, and they were not digital. The challenge in digital is to make them LOOK as good as film.