The point I am going to make here is about workflow.

I noticed a lot of photographers discussed the accuracy of metering in the field or before a shot. Part of the point I was trying to make is "it is usually more important to GET the shot". Certainly if you shoot raw, you can "re-meter" in post, when the sense of urgency is less. Taking time in the field to meter every shot for color balance may defeat the purpose of shooting the picture. I suggested setting the camera for daylight, 5500 degrees and leave it, unless you are in a tungsten setting, and even then, with LED's and all the different colors of light, you still may be better off just shooting and setting the white balance in post.

The only time I think it is beneficial to your workflow to check light color, is when you are going to be shooting a lot in a setting that is all one color light. And in such a setting getting an accurate color reading will be difficult because of all the subtle variations. Clearly a color meter is way more accurate than the camera reading off a card. But color meters are expensive, then we are back to compromises. Take a color reading that may not be entirely accurate and if the shot looks funny in the computer then you change it anyway.

People have correctly pointed out that when looking at a digital image on the monitor and you want color accuracy, the monitor must be calibrated. Unfortunately, most monitors sold are not capable of being totally corrected for white balance, and laptops are certainly not. To truly check a monitor, outside of using a color checker, you need a knowledge of the RGB #s on the Gretag-Macbeath card. When you shoot this card in a test shot, each of the squares has a RGB numerical value. In Photoshop, and probably some other editing programs, you can check the actual display color of each square, by the RGB#. This is hyper accurate and will truly tell you what color is being seen.

However, if your printer is not calibrated and you are not using the correct color profile for the paper you are using, then everything else is for naught.

So back to the workflow point, why take all of the time to color check each scene for white balance if the rest of the color chain is not accurate at all. Just get the shot and correct/re-balance in post. And for all of the JPEG fans out there, this is another reason to shoot RAW.

Depending on the age, it might be Minolta equipment. Sony bought Minolta several years ago, and changed the branding on all Minolta equipment to Sony.

I have used Kastar batteries for several of my Canon cameras. Good battery and the company stands behind them. You can also buy them on Amazon.

Photoshop can invert a negative into a color positive.

I have a color meter, that accurately measures the color temperature of light sources. But for the vast majority of the time, I leave the color balance set to 5500 degrees, which is the temperature of sunlight. I also always shoot RAW. When processing the images, Adobe RAW converter will permit you to modify the white balance. 5500 degrees is also the color temp of daylight film. If you truly want to only shoot accurate color balanced photos, this means you may have to re-meter after every shot, or you can leave it set for sunlight and change the image when processing it.

You can also use a Photoshop plug-in like ICorrect EditLab, a color corrector which can change the white balance of any neutral object in the image.

But correct color is essential in all shots, especially portraits.

let me start by saying I am not a fan of litigation.

Yes it is. Go to Select then "transform selection" then you can change it.

Canon makes a tethered remote release and a wireless remote release. They are both capable of being set for long exposures. I use the tethered release when ever I do night time photography, to avoid any movement while the camera is on the tripod. The wireless has a receiver that plugs into the side of the camera, the same place as the tethered one.

If you have a tripod with a leveling bubble, level it that way. But it does matter if for nothing else, shadows will be a little different.

I personally think that 4x5 and 35mm film made better photographers, because they are less forgiving, and they slow you down and make you more deliberate in your shooting. Digital tempts you to just blast away, because there is no cost of expendables. I know my 4x5 shots are better than my digital shots. Even with a digital back for a medium format or a large format, there is still that tendency to just throw away some shots.

You are correct. While refurbished equipment has been brought back to original manufacturer specs, the lens or camera still has some original parts, which have suffered some use. The problem is you don't know if was gentle use or rugged use, hence the limited warranty. Do not buy refurbished equipment and expect it to always last like new. It may or it may not. There is risk.

You will find some photographers on this site, believe that modern JPEGS are just as good as RAW. (which they aren't). I realize this will probably inflame some opinions, but it is what it is.

All digital photos, scanned or shot, will yellow teeth and the whites of the eyes. The trick is when you whiten them is to not do it too much. Don't make it look like they just went to the dentist. Is easier to do in Photoshop, where you make a new layer of White, then make a black mask and use a soft brush to paint the white in. Turn down the opacity of the white layer. Same thing with the eyes. Make it look natural, just enough to counter the digital yellowing.

You can also put a slight Gaussian blur over the face in a new layer, and use a black mask and a soft brush to take away the blur on eyebrows, eyes, nostrils, hair, mouth and teeth. You can leave the soft blur on the mole, or take away the blur. The blur has the effect of applying airbrushed make-up to the face. It is usually more acceptable to the client than taking out all of the wrinkles. Turn down the opacity of the layer to make it look natural.

You can do the same thing to clothes, and take the mask away on the edges of the clothes. It will appear they have been ironed.

Katrin Eismann has a book on Photo Retouching and Restoration that is excellent. You might consider purchasing it. It is in its 4th printing.

One last thought, you can shoot on black velvet for one effect, and black mylar or black plexiglas, highly polished, for a "floating" effect.

It depends. jewelry you see in magazines or high end catalogs is usually composited from several shots for each piece. Watches for example have one shot for the face, one for the bazel, one for the hands, one for the stem and one for the band, all with subtle changes in the lighting used and the final is composited in Photoshop. Reflections are the demon of jewelry shooting. Shooters who do a lot of jewelry usually have a plastic translucent dome they place over the piece and shoot through a lens hole in the dome. You can replicate this with tissue paper and wire hangers and have the light come through the tissue. The extend to which you want to have a magazine quality result will dictate the time and hence the amount you charge. If you are just going to do snapshots, you wouldn't charge much.