That's true, and each software company has their own interpretation of a good starting point for a raw image from a given camera. What is nice with raw images though, is that there are usually different profiles built into the software that you can try out instead of their default profile. Some have more contrast or color, some with more shadow detail, and then there's usually also the linear profile, which is quite flat and desaturated to start with (somewhat like s-log with video).

Hi Paul,
If you are only looking for Sony brand lenses there are some great suggestions here. One thing that is nice about the Sony cameras is availability of other options. Sigma makes some great lenses, I just got their 16mm 1.4. It's quite amazing if you're looking for a wide angle, incredibly sharp even wide open. It is an APS C lens, so it's perfect for the A6500, and would have the equivalent angle of view of a 24mm.

Of course it's always best to get as close to ideal exposure (which is relative and subjective) in the camera, that's a given. Where you are wrong is in assuming that fixing a bad exposure in post makes someone a lousy photographer. Every photographer ever has had bad exposures for a variety of reasons - something was happening very quickly and there was no time to adjust the camera, maybe the camera malfunctioned, or didn't do it's job ideally with exposure, etc., etc. Recognizing a great moment captured regardless of the 'correct' exposure is a sign of a good photographer. Ansel Adams saved his Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico photo by making adjustments to the film processing. He is not a lousy photographer. Making a blanket statement like yours is narrow-sighted, dealing only with one technical aspect of the craft while ignoring all the many aspects and talents that make someone a good photographer, first and foremost of which is vision. Most pros shoot in RAW format because it produces every bit of information and quality their camera can produce, in order to fully realize their vision, and also because they know things do not always go according to plan every time. Every pro has their horror story, or stories, and shooting in a format with the best flexibility is a sign of a good professional - increasing their ability to deliver.

When you first looked though the lens, the moon filled the viewfinder because it was way out of focus. For getting the best exposure for a full moon use a manual exposure setting, remembering that what you are looking at is the same as high noon on earth on a clear day, so ISO 100, 1/400th sec. at f8 would be a good start.

Unless I missed it, I don't see you mentioning if the photos were shot in jpeg or raw. If they were taken in raw it's mostly just an inconvenience as the white balance can be set to whatever you intended in the raw converter. If they were taken in jpeg format the color balance is more cooked in and takes a bit more to correct. I've done the same thing many times, accidentally bumping the white balance button, but shooting raw it's more of an oops than a disaster.

I hope so, because my photos are eclectic. I personally don't see the point in making everything I shoot look the same because the subjects vary and each photo demands (to me) it's own identity according to the subject and how I feel about the subject, what I'm trying to say. It's kind of like letting each of your kids be who they are. My photos are my offspring. That said, I do think there is a thread that holds my photos together - how I see and feel, and think, and react.

Having graduated from art school, I don't think creativity can be taught. Learning the mechanics of composition, form, light, etc. give us tools to apply the creativity. The right kind of training can however help to maximize and nurture creativity. "The Artist's Way" by Julia Cameron is a great example of this.

Beautiful! Thank you for posting those.

Hi Bobspez,
When you were comparing the actual box and the image on your screen was the box in the same spot that you photographed it? If not, the color of the light was most likely different, and probably even affected by the light coming from the monitor itself. That said, no digital camera or film image is ever going to be exactly what we see because we don't have our brain processing the image from the camera. The difference might also be due in part by the accuracy or inaccuracy of your monitor. Depending on your purpose for making the photo, this can be bad, just an annoyance, or a non-issue. A photograph is always going to be an interpretation of the real thing - real life isn't made of pixels or film grain and isn't two dimensional. Personally, I like using that 'limitation' as a platform for making my own interpretations of the world, but I'm just one person and everyone's goals are different which keeps things fun and interesting! Cheers!

Just forget it. You won't address or take responsibility for your throwing out labels based on a single line of information. Don't bother responding, I'm done here.

So? From one suggestion you can surmise who I am and how I approach photography? You're not even close.

I agree, but that's not the problem here. You totally ignored the point of my previous post. You quoted my post and lumped me in with 'most people'. What do you really know about me that qualifies me as a gearhead?

I'm happy for you. The last thing I am is a gearhead. I've shot commercial jobs with a Holga. It's just a recommendation for a couple of great cameras that would be well suited to wedding photography. I was just trying to be helpful by offering A suggestion. Not the ONLY, or ULTIMATE solution. Labeling people from a single sentence without any other knowledge of who they are or what their priorities are is just so wrong in so many ways.

Both the Auto Distortion and HDR in the camera apply to jpeg only. Camera Raw and Lightroom will deal with the distortion much more thoroughly than the camera will, as will Photoshop and Photomatix for the HDR.

Hi Melody,
I think it would be hard to get weddings on a professional level without some examples to show. The suggestions of searching for a place to be a second shooter are the best way to go. Be sure you let the studio know you are looking to gain experience and want to start a business of your own - could save some legal hassles down the road. Your portraits are really nice, so I think most professional wedding studios would see a great potential in you.
As far as equipment goes, you could see what established studios are using now, and what they recommend. You will need a camera that is capable of producing great quality in a wide variety of situations. The first cameras that come to my mind are the Canon 5DMk3 and Nikon D800.
Good luck in your endeavors.