Mine was set on "Reset" & it did it's date sequence thing just like it was supposed to. When I changed it to "Auto" it held the setting just fine, it just doesn't do what the book says it should. Maybe I just need a bigger hammer??

Thanks photocat. I've did this procedure a few days ago, went out & shot, downloaded, went out a couple days later & shot 5 or 6 images, and walla, it started from 1 again.

Thank you Morning Star, and everyone else. I really appreciate all of you helping me solve my problem. I did set the camera to "Auto", and my assumption is that it should retain the last number used and continue from there; however, this camera can't seem to remember the last number. I think I may have a sick em-1 here. I've contacted Olympus and should have a response form them in a day or two. My first shot for a solution was a phone call to Olympus customer service for OMD cameras. Unfortunately the guy I talked to didn't really speak English; from there he either didn't understand the problem or he knew very little about how the em-1 worked. It was a very sad experience as far as customer service SHOULD go. I wonder if the "remembering number" thing is in firmware or uses a hidden back up battery inside the camera. Thanks again to everyone. I now have several things to try and hopefully we will solve the problem.

How do I get my em-1 to name files by consecutive numbering. On page 238 of David Busch's Oly book he says go to Custom H:/record/erase/filename and choose Auto. I've done this and every time I download & start a new shoot the darn thing starts from number 1 again. My download procedure is card-reader to iMac; run another back up & be sure I've got em and format the card in the camera. Is it an Oly thing that it can't remember what number it was on and starts over? I don't really like to just erase the photos, I'd rather format. I've done this with lots of cameras and never had a problem. Is this a typical Oly thing or have I had a camera problem since day one of ownership?. Thanks for your help. Oh Ya, I've done dumb things before, so clue me in if I've done another one.

I tried the Glock sight adjustment tool and it would not install Mepro-light Tru-Dot Night sights. I then went with a Site Master Site Pusher tool. It works great. I've used it on Glocks, 1911's plus others. it works & it was 60 bucks when I got mine from GlockStore.

Hi Philo. I'm truly the old guy type. I proof print EVERY photo I take. 8.5 x 11 sheets, 9 up, punched and saved in loose leaf binders. Yes, I've got a hell of a lot of binders, but I like to look at prints. From there I mark the ones I think are worth further processing. I make quite a few 16x20's. My limiting factor is my bride, who kind of dictates how much wall space I can use! I, like you, have no noise problems when I print images from either my EM-1 or A7R II, but I'm not into black cats, in a coal bin, at midnite. Let me ask you something. Is noise really bad? I remember in the film days it took me years before I could accept that grain actually could add to a photo. Now when I think about noise, is it really bad, or are we reenacting the early stages of grain again??

Hi Bobbie. Good to hear from you. I appreciate you energy level and your devotion to quality images. You are right about one of your statements, I SHOULD NOT be shooting weddings, and I don't, any more. I'm old and retired. Back in the dark ages of film I shot quite a few of them, enough to keep the wolf away from the door. It sounds almost like you think a jpeg is some sort of an inferior product. Maybe yours are not very good. I only shoot for my own pleasure now, but I can assure you that my Oly EM-1 which I shoot mostly and my Sony A7R II will both make very nice jpeg photos. The limiting factor is my ability to use the camera properly. I seem to have a fairly high percentage of good ones however. As far as shooting in raw, I do so almost 100% of the time, but I shoot landscapes, still life and some portraits. I can appreciate your dedication to the raw mode. I will not argue with you; I will only propose that if your business grows, tell me how much you are still shooting raw after you've shot your first 1000 weddings. I suspect that at that time, you will feel that your ability to shoot jpegs at large events will have improved to the point that your jpegs are very worthy of sale. Good luck in your business.

Hi Bobbie. Good to hear from you. I appreciate you energy level and your devotion to quality images. You are right about one of your statements, I SHOULD NOT be shooting weddings, and I don't, any more. I'm old and retired. Back in the dark ages of film I shot quite a few of them, enough to keep the wolf away from the door. It sounds almost like you think a jpeg is some sort of an inferior product. Maybe yours are not very good. I only shoot for my own pleasure now, but I can assure you that my Oly EM-1 which I shoot mostly and my Sony A7

Hi Philo. I'll be a bit different than most of the hoggers. First, most sports or wedding photographers shoot jpegs. The reason is simple, you'll have 100's of photos to process. Unless you're a VERY high rent district guy, you don't want the headache of processing 100's of raw files.
Second, if you shoot Oly or Sony or Pana, you'll know what you have before you trip the shutter; if it looks good it will it will be good. Third, it's ok to give the couple a CD with your exposures, you charge for the job being done. Fourth, make real sure you reduce the size of your jpegs, that you put on the CD, to the point that they look fairly good on a screen and won't have enough pixels to print better than a 3x5 print. Now you bases are covered, they get to have and to hold your jpegs and you still are their source for any photos larger than 3x5's. If your couple want the full size jpegs, charge accordingly, get paid once big time and be done with the project.

Hi Jerry. For what it's worth, I use a 4TB Seagate external HD. I use Lightroom to import the exposures and have it save them to the 4TB drive. Then about once a month or so I retrieve my 2nd 4TB Seagate from the safe deposit box and add any new exposures to that drive. So I have lots of storage at home and good back up at the bank. I shoot only raw files & use disc space rather quickly. I don't want to fill up the HD in the iMac, so I went external HD from day one with the iMac.

I really like this image and I love your theory of the image. I see many beautiful photos that have no single subject. I appreciate your color tone range, your color gradation, the depth of the sunset. Over the years I've seen too many "judges" who were stuck with latest rule of the minute, stuck in 3rd grade photographic rules. (I was one of them for a few years). One day I woke up and started to see the beauty in a image, even if the horizon was a 10th of a degree from level, etc. etc. A very nice image. Thanks for sharing.

I'm glad my comment got you thinking. You will see lots of snap shorts with 2 catch lights. I think it's poor craftsmanship; but then I had to study classic lighting back in the ancient history of my NYI education. With the catch light as painted in this model, the light would be low and shining up at her. This is the kind of lighting, when used harshly, that the old terror movies used to use, to create monsters. With all this said, the painter of this model may, or may not, have had a clue what he/she was doing. I think it could be said, that this type of lighting, when used with out any fill, can never be flattering to a pretty young lady. Now that you're thinking catchlights, think of how much fun you'll have when studying advertising portraits in quality magazines.

Nightski, you are dead on. This is a beautiful photograph created by Graham. I'd like to point out something to you re. you observation of the catchlight. Obviously Graham didn't put it there, because he would know better. As you look at any catchlight, you should be able to tell where the main light of the photograph was positioned. In this case, the catchlight should be at about 2 o'clock rather than at 7 o'clock. This doesn't diminish Graham's photo in the least. I just wanted to point this out to you when you're looking at portraits. There are lots of high end studios that are now using the main light in normal position above & off center to the subject; and then add a large reflector below and in front of the subject to add fill. Frequently it gives 2 catch lights, one at 10 to 2 o'clock, and another at about 6 o'clock. I don't care for it, but it's trendy in some places, and they charge lots of $$ for it.

I really like this one Graham. I like the overall composition, the use of the diagonal, and the texture detail. What I like the most however, is the thought, the interpretation of the scene. Treating the sky/clouds in a lower key to high light the white of the lady is a great use of the B&W medium. A strongly seen subject, photographed with the final presentation in mind. Very well done. I've learned a lot from this photograph. Thanks a lot.

Very nice Graham. Good composition, good exposure, good focus, very good processing. I think it would also make a super B&W.