We have approx 150 dogs at any one time, so we have plenty to choose from no matter what you are looking for.....here's the deal on pictures as I see it....you don't have to show scale, size, blah blah ...what you do is make the web site with ALL the dogs pictures look as good as you can and the people will come. They may not get the dog they thought they wanted once they interact with several, but at least the people come to look and it usually results in an adoption.

Now for the numbers...I have been taking pictures there for a year...someone told me they were at a meeting a year ago and the director said we had an adoption rate of 50%.....the same person said they were at a meeting 2 weeks ago and the director said the adoption rate is now 85%
the director and operations manage are CONSTANTLY telling me how important the pictures are.
To tell you the truth I would not even try to pretend that good pictures are the sole reason for a raise in the adoption rate by 35%, but I can guarantee you one thing...it didn't hurt.
Think of it this way ...if you go out there and replace lousy pictues with good pictures of say 20 dogs, you can be pretty sure that in the future at least one dog will be alive and happy because of your pictures as opposed to you doing nothing.
If you were that one dog, how could someone who says they enjoy photography explain to you why they didn't help, simply by doing something they enjoy.

It's a "life is too short" issue for me. I would never suggest that what I do is the right way for everyone.

However, in all my careers... (now 69 and still humping for $$), if I have learned one thing about the tools I use... construction, marketing, computer consulting, etc,. is that life is too short to do more than focus on learning the tools that get the job done.

Having those other more sophisticated tools available is great, and I could do a lot of post processing, but why should I? I am more happy with the volume of work that is done at the end of the day, provided it meets my standards of quality.

For me, RAW is a tool that is simply going to hang on the wall, unused. I know how to get the standards and quality I want, by knowing how to maneuver the pixels IN the camera. Ie, the histogram, the metering modes, the manual mode, using a high quality hand held light meter instead of depending on formulas engineered by programmers in the camera, some of whom have never snapped a shutter in a creative environment.

Some may say I am being short sighted... and that's fine with me. At the end of the day, I may decide to take the next day or two off, partly because I am not slave to RAW and/or Post Processing.

And when you say it's saved your bacon (Ok, you said ASS, but aren't ASS and bacon somewhat the same, or anatomically near each other) more than once, I respect that, but it also implies that it's a part of your income program, and that's a whole 'nother reason you may be doing it as I see it.

Again, not arguing the point. Just pointing out another perspective. I don't buy the one that says one has to be shooting RAW to be a photographer. What does that make me when I am out with a 4X5 large format, or a medium format film camera. I do still do over half my photography in that realm.

In fact, I am making MY money buying a selling film camera's. Both large format and medium format are rising in popularity and price. Perhaps RAW had something to do with that. Many are finding digital personal usage way too frustrating and returning, or embarking on simpler photography for higher quality results.

In fact that may be the reason some wedding photographers have not switched. One reason is the learning curve to quality if they are already booked heavily. But then, there is the wedding photographer I know who switched to digital, got brave and shot a whole wedding on one 32 Gb memory card. Put it in his computer, and the card failed. Turned out to be counterfeit. Lost the whole wedding.!!!!! Well, as it turned out, not entirely. His second man was shooting his film equipment, and he told the guy to try to dupe what he shot throughout the day.

He came to me and asked me to sell him back one of his film camera's he "unloaded" when he switched to digital.

Is this a RAW problem ... Ok ... No. Is this a digital problem? Well it shouldn't be???? but is it? No... it's his problem for not considering all the variables and a switch to an entirely new way of creating images.

Lastly, the turnaround time for delivery for wedding and some other professions, like sport journalism leave no time for RAW. Many tight timeline professions do not leave time for dealing with a format that is unusable as it comes from the camera. RAW is that to me.... unusable in it's native OOC (out of camera) format and quite useless (to me) as a result.

Oh my goodness - If you think you cannot make a profit just because it was "professionally printed," what on earth do you think the selling price is? An 8x10 at my lab costs (depending on options) from around $2.25 to $4.00. I sell it for between $50.00 and $85.00 depending on subject, amount of total sale, and some other considerations. I can make a profit!

This is where so many wannabes fail, they think if it cost $4.00 to print and they sell it for $8.00, that they made a profit. Nope, they just lost around $25.00 and are too naive to know it.

i have used this product for years and years. i have used it when it was genuine fractals 1.0 and i think a company called leaping lizards or something like that owned it.

it is great and does exactly what it says it will do.

i use this product at least 5 days a week.

if you have a crappy small image....it will be blown up crappy.

but if you have a decent photo you want blown up...it works great.

i also use it at work as i do the graphics for out 10' wide banner printer. i have made 4x6 photos up to 8' tall and sharp as it was at the small size.

but if you have intentions of pulling tiny 37k optimized photos off the web and plan on blowing them up to 8x10 or larger, you will be disappointed.

like the old saying...garbage in...garbage out.

this is one of the most spectacular pieces of software that i have ever used.

if you get it and need some help or pointers..you can PM me. i would be glad to help.

Thank you all for your contributions. Your helpful comments have helped me clarify things (I think). After further research, I have decided to go the 15-85 route, because, for my purposes, the low end of the scale will be more important than the length of the zoom. Also the quality of the glass and sharpness mentioned in the reviews was a factor.

I will take my "nifty fifty" as well. Who knows, I may even "chicken out" and pack my kit 55-250, but I'll purchase the 15-85 lens well before I go and see for myself if that will really be necessary.

Next upgrade will be to replace the kit 55-250 with better glass but that can wait for later.

Thanks once again.

I agree about the prime lenses. I bought a 50mm f1.8 for just over $100 and it's my favourite lens.-- so--off to the camera shop tomorrow to play!