Is that a typo or Freudian slip? In UK we call it a craB apple not a craP apple

I'm not a dealer just a gadget enthusiast and use ebay for buying and selling. In UK ebay+paypal fees total 13% so if p/x with a dealer is a lot less than ebay expection I will px - paraphasing YMVM there can be a lot of hassle using ebay, and there are a moderate number of unscrupulous buyers.

For high value items the huge advantage of a dealer is p/x and forget - no comebacks, complaints, follow up emails, you can trust the dealer a lot better than some anonymous ebay buyer etc etc. Also if same as UK p/x will always get a better price than straight sale. I guess you don't have a local dedicated camera store, but if you do try them for p/x and just tell them can they better this offer from xyz?

If I do decide to use ebay, I take and include good quality photos from every side - for a lens thats 4 front on to cover 360 deg, top and bottom held so I can see light through the lens, and definitely one of the serial number. I also include photo/s of any scuffs or other marks. I clearly state the photos form part of the description and no returns unless incorrectly described. as you can see a fair bit of work but if I expect and then clear enough extra ££$$ or more after fees then probably worth it. (How much extra $$££ depends on individuals of course but for me its a couple of hours work so at least £50.)

I had one buyer complain the lens was not as described as it had lots of marks on it and wanted to return for refund. I emailed back 'if you have more than one lens of this type make sure you check the serial number before returning' - didn't hear another word!!!

If I sell something without a serial number I use a UV pen to sign the item somewhere inconspicuous and photograph that.

probably 99% of the time I've never had a problem, but if I have its been a big issue to resolve and as mentioned previously ebay tend to side with buyers.

So bottom line, again paraphasing YMMV - unless you expect to make a lot more selling privately / via ebay p/x with a reputable dealer, preferably in your area so you can haggle a bit would be my suggestion

Wow, there is one heck of a lot high spec described above!

I run PS and LR classic mainly with RAW file input on a dell 17" laptop with i5 processor with 16GB ram, on board video card, 256GB SSD for operating system and 2TB HDD for data and no problems with performance at all. I do use a EIZO adobe colour space monitor and use a spyder colour checker monthly. I use the laptop because I have it. Now no longer travel for work I would be equally happy with desktop of similar spec at a lot lower cost. As I now only travel for pleasure I use a Dell XPS with i5 and 16GB memory on the go for LR CC only (as mentioned above LR is a lot less processor/ memory intensive than PS.

i7 processor and more memory come into their own if you do a lot of concurrent processing which I seldom do. Yes PS does internally but again, unless doing a big export or similar, you would not notice particularly. Also memory becomes an issue only if you have a lot of images open at the same time (I often have 10 to 15 but seldom more.)

If I went for a desktop now I would probably get an i7 if I could as it is expensive to upgrade, and would start with 16GB providing I left an upgrade slot empty. SSD for operating system, and apps such as PS, also set the SSD for PS scratch file. There is virtually no overhead for doing this on an SSD but there would be for HDD. Get a PS compatable video card - check with Adobe web site cos PS can take advantage of video card on-board processing/ memory and some can't. When in doubt make sure there is room to upgrade / expand.

Always have Data on separate disk for ease of backup and general management, SSD I could afford it HDD if not (although SSD costs have plummeted in recent months.) Extenal HDD/ local NAS for local backup of data, with cloud storage for last ditch security. Common sense is to have good quality local backup at least. Although we never had that with film, it is a lot easier to delete/ disk crash digital imagery than film :)

Bottom line - if it works for you don't fix it!

I'm guessing you have CF not SD card - one of the great advantages quoted originally for SD is that there are no pins to bend either with the card or within the camera.

From 1st hand experienceusing CF with a Canon EOS 5D1 I can go along with your concerns! The downsides for me are: I change card each day when on a trip after backing up to a computer or pad I keep the used card in an RF guarded case as local backup until I get home; using the same card almost indefinitely has reliability implications as there is a limit on the number of write/ reads a card can sustain (admittedly a high number for everyday users); finally from my own testing the USB transfer rate of large RAW files is grindingly slow over USB.

The latter point has not improved a great deal since switching to EOS R. Even though it has a USB-C interface; I'm using a top end high speed USB-C cable; and plugging into a USB-C port on a Dell XPS, the upload performance is way slower than using a quality UHS-II USB-C card reader.

Yo don't say whether you are working FF or cropped body. But the principles are the same. There is a trade off between size and weight, and distance from the subject.

Distance from the subject can be critical for two reasons: a live subject won't like a huge lens and camera positioned often a few mm from them; of often greater importance is the ability to light the subject when the lens/camera/ photographer is blocking all light.

I developed an interest in macro and explored 3 lenses for FF before deciding on the Sigma 150 - its reasonably compact and not too heavy, does 1:1 without problems, and gives a good distance for live subjects, and allows natural lighting to be used without too many issues. Also because it has f/2.8 aperture it trebles up as a pretty good longer portrait lens, and is good for astronomy on a simple tracking mount! It doesn't have IS but I've not found that an issue as IS is not so useful for macro as invariably I use a tripod, and for portraiture a wider aperture and high shutter speed.

If you are using a cropped body camera then the 105 will give a similar focal length (x1.6 if Canon) which may give you greater than 1:1 (not sure as haven't tested) but it won't give the same lens to subject distance (it is still a 105 mm lens that the camera 'crops' the centre from after all.)

If you can, support your local camera shop and test what they have . It may cost a little more for the lens but I have found with mine the support and assistance more than balances that

Hi Andy,

I too use Lightroom because of its RAW processing and organisation capability - ie exactly for the reasons you mention.

Its downside you also mention being the £/$10 p/m which for a beginner may be a big investement when not sure. Also because it is so comprehensive it has a bit of a learning curve before you really get to grips with it? I know I had a couple of false starts and re-starts before I got my final library organisation the way that suited me. To explore this option I would suggest the free download 'Lightroom Classic Quickstart' by The lightoom Queen (https://www.lightroomqueen.com/free-downloads/) - she really knows her stuff and presents it in a concise and well organised orde. I found it a first class intro that helped me with organisation choices and workflow.

Another application gaining a lot of traction is a worthy competitor to LR and is Luminar. IMHO the interface and editing are in the same league as LR although the library management is not as comprehensive. It is plenty good enough for those who don't have a huge need. A BIG advantage is it is a one of payment and considerable less than just one year of the Adobe Photo package.

There are of course others equally excellent in various ways such as ON1.

Perhaps for someone just starting out, keep it simple at first (as I guess we all did) then evaluate with the free download and trial period the main players such as Adobe, Luminar, ON1 and so on. As you identified the ability to organise and recall images from a pool of thousands over a few years, is a powerful advantage

There are a huge number of ways to achieve this and a lot of photo processing software will do it for you. Assuming a Windows 10 PC, probably the simplest to start with, is remove the memory card from the camera, insert into your PC if you have a card reader slot, and 'open' the memory card as a disc in File manager or 'This PC'. [* If you do not have a card reader on your PC then buy a compatible USB card reader. I suggest a USB 3 reader as the upload will be faster.]

I don't know Nikon file structure but there will be a number of folders which you can view to find where the images have been stored.

Also, assuming the images are JPEG you can view a thumbnail of the images on the card in the file manager (if not visible just right click in a blank space of the folder, then select View>Large icons.)

This makes the files on the memory card visible and available.

To copy to the PC you need to select a location to copy them to. Simplest is the local folder Pictures (click Start icon, then a location 'Pictures' should be one of the icons. Click that. You then have 2 locations open, the memory card and the Pictures folder.

Now just copy from one to the other. You can drag and drop single or multiple files.

This will get you started, but if you get 'hooked' on photography you will very soon need some organisation method to manage the high number of images you want to copy and keep. Simply creating a folder structure in Pictures with location and/or date will do for a while. But before long you will want to consider an image import/ managing application and a suitable structure for long term storage and access which caters for location, date, people, etc (the classic filing dilemma - do I save this under 'beach' or 'family' or 'Joe' or 'Jane' or 'Holiday' or .... ? The more elegant solutions (and typically more costly) allow you to tag and subsequently search for whatever you have defined.

Variations:
* depending on which version of Windows, 'This Computer' could be a different name

* typically when you insert a memory card for the first time, Windows will prompt for you to select the default action. I suggest 'open in a folder for viewing' (or similar.

There are two elements to the original request: the colour density and seeing the texture of the fur

with a very dark or black subject, reflective metering increases exposure so subject become 'grey' - decrease exposure

The darker the subject the greater the exposure decrease needed - a black subject can require up to 3 stops of exposure increase but 1 or 2 stops is more likely.

The problem is that the resulting correctly exposed black dog loses all fur texture. The suggestion to spritz the fur with a very fine water spray is excellent, particularly in good light. The tips and other parts of fur will show as highlights - texture returned!

picture of Winston after swim in Loch Ness, Scotland

I too had problems with metering - not animals - but people in bright Mediterranean light wher my family appearing overexposed. This was not a problem in UK with our more temperate lighting. Did some reading and it seems that white people are too light for 18% grey and black people are too dark. It is a credit to the Ev latitude of modern digital cameras and post processing of RAW exposure that it is not too often ashow stopper.

Returning to the reading, it suggested Hally Berry as an example of complexion colour for 18% metering From that, it is suggested that with a reflectance meter (ie in camera) you may need open up to get the right exposure for black skin tones and close down for white.

Another option already suggested, is of course looking to meter off something that is typically about 18%, and suggested green grass as one of many options.

Best of all is an incidence light meter - yet another item of equipment to purchase and carry! Is that why wedding photographers with the perennial problem of people and clothing varying across almost the whole spectrum?

Any wedding photographers with good advice?

Try Fastone image viewer (and pretty good editor)

It reads Canon cr2, cr3, Panasonic RAW and adobe DNG to my knowledge. In the list of read formats includes Nikon and Sony raw amongst several others but I haven't tested those.

And its free

Quite. Simple, cheap, and works. All the extras add weight, complexity of manufacture, and by the time you wind something up and down, adjust this adjust that, the dowel solution has been adjusted, photo taken, and photographer walked on. KISS indeed! If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Mind you there are a number of irresistible human motivations - one of which is to improve someone else's creation - sometimes it does, as often as not it doesn't - as I have found out with some of my mods in the past

I worked in my parents hardware shop as a youngster and a guy brought in a brilliantly simple idea to stop fishing rods sliding on the rail when fishing off a pier. He asked my father if he was interested in selling them if he made a few. My father was as impressed as me then pointed out it was also very easy to copy, and people will copy rather than buy.

This to is a brilliantly simple idea in the same vein - and just as easy to copy. Having worked peripherally on the process before I retired, having a patent is a very expensive business - drawing up documents, submitting the patent usually via lawyers, the cost of maintaining the patent itself with the Patent Office, and that is before any enforcement becomes necessary. Then unless a manufacturer takes it on, where is your revenue?

Congratulations on a great idea, but I would suggest be very pleased with your idea and implementation but don't consider patenting.

simplest and most reliable - no batteries, no phone, no electronics is a basic wired shutter release. Leaves the camera unconnected except the wired remote socket which has no use for anything else. As your standing next to the tripod it doesn't have to be more than a couple of feet long. If you can get one with a coiled lead even better as you can't accidentally jog the camera or over tension the cable when connected, also when coiled just let it hang off the camera as it wieghs next to nothing.

I also have a 3rd party remote flash trigger which is bi-directional ie the camera can fire a remote flash, or pressing the button on the remote flash trigger will fire the camera. Mounts on the flash shoe but has through connections for a flash or whatever above. Bit more fussy but means I can use remote flash from a good distance, and stiff fire the camera and if necessary a second camera mounted flash.
I probably use the simple ebay manual cabled trigger 10x as often (probably 50x as often if I think about it! :)

I'm at a complete loss as to where ISO adds/ detracts from the creativity of the image.

ALL sensors have a 'base sensitivity' typically at the lowest published ISO value (but not always). Sometimes called the Base ISO or Native ISO

ALL images are sensed at the base sensitivity, the ISO setting - manual or auto - just amplifies or not the resulting image - ie just brightens the resulting image to the proportion set by the ISO setting. As an example Canon sensors use hardware amplification for whole stops and software for intermediate. So any ISO setting above base ISO is a hardware or software amplification, nothing more. A given ISO setting has no effect at all on perceived sharpness because the pixel spacing of a sensor is fixed and invariate - a 20Mpx sensor is 20Mpx with the same pixel spacing no matter what ISO is selected.

Very high ISO settings can cause chromatic or Luminance noise. This is NOT because of the manual or auto ISO setting, it is because just not enough light hits the sensor at base ISO for the sensor to determine the correct colour (chroma) or even enough light at all (luminance)

The great benefit of ISO settings is that it gives the photographer the ability to select automatically or manually the shutter speed / lens aperture that allows him or her to manage DoF and / or blur to their creative choice. This is a huge advantage over film where the A.S.A choice was made for all current images the moment the film was put in the camera.

So back to my original point, if ISO settings are just a hardware or software amplification of the base ISO sensitivity, sort out aperture or shutter speed you want - or both if you prefer - and let the internal computer take care of the sensor amplification (ISO)