It's a real shame I have done a little research and it looks like BlueSLR has gone out of business. The website is not available or the support page through iTunes.

looks like there is a business opportunity there!

I have BlueSLR (Bluetooth device) and the Zesty cable for iPhone. I like the BlueSLR for the wireless capabilities when I am moving around allot. I use the Zesty cable when I am stationary as it uses less battery from phone and camera.

Both work equally well and I have had no issues with the devices, apps or camera getting the data from them.

D800 & D3s cameras and iPhone 4S iOS6. Both apps work fine with the new iPhone OS.

HTH

Later,
Jeff

Here's the link to the Amazon GPs for NIkon if anyone is interested

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B005D84SDO/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B005D84SDO&linkCode=as2&tag=ifootpath-21

Interesting stuff. I take images for our walking directions website. We record a GPS track on the way round and I can import this into Lightroom 4. I can then manually place the images on the track. I would rather be able to record the GPS data directly to the photo as it would make it much easier. I am surprised that you can't connect the iphone to the camera (I have a NIkon D7000). Anyone heard of a way to do this.

i know you could take an iPhone picture and just copy the data but seems a bit long winded in the digital age. Love the D7000 as I have just updated from a D60.

there is an on camera GPS logger on Amazon.co.uk now for less than £40 so I might just buy that and forget the iphone option.

Our iPhoone app records a great track that so that bit is not the problem (app is called ifootpath if you are interested)

Would welcome any thoughts

There's an iPhone app called MotionX-GPS. I think it's free.

Set the app running when you leave home and it records your route (position recording interval automatically adjusts to suit your speed).
When you get home, stop the app and email the track file to yourself.
Import the track into Apple Aperture (presumably Lightroom is similar) and a single click tags all your photos from that trip with their GPS coordinates.

Brilliant. I especially like it because I take my phone with me everywhere.

The only possible problem is that GPS drains the phone battery a bit quicker - the battery might not last a full-day photoshoot.

This is looking great, an all in one device is very welcome when only one plug is available...

A news:
ZGR-1, an accessory to control Nikon DSLR camera from iPhone

Zesty systems Inc.(Japan) has released ZGR-1 accessory to provide
superior functionality to extend the competence of Nikon DSLR.
<LINK REMOVED>

I use to shoot in JPEG the first 2 months I got my DSLR. Every since I found out what I can do from shoot in RAW I never went back to JPEG. With RAW I can change the white balance, noise reduction, clone, etc... with the outcome looking much better than if I would of done those editing when shoot in JPEG.

sevencrossing said:
Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

It will be arriving from B & H on Thursday. I did not need to try it out as I have Lightroom 3 and find it is wonderful. I understand Lightroom 4 will allow the RAW 14 Bit Lossless, compressed files to be used, so, the D4 will be producing some even more exciting photos...... And I will be back to seeing the humongous files in my computer once again. Ha, ha, ha...

Pierre said:
Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

That is just you creativity bursting to get out ...

msmoto said:
Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition.

Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

bjrichus said:
Ah ha! A voice of reason...

Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.... you folks are all great. Of course no one answered the question, "Do I even know what I am doing?" Ha, ha, ha.

Most likely, I will go with Lightroom 4, as I am becoming a little familiar with LR 3. Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition. Eventually I may try some HDR stuff, really love it, but the end is almost always to attempt to emulate the Ansel Adams tonal range but do this in color. I think I can actually see some differences in the RAW images which I put on my desktop, import as DNG, then process. There is more available than with JPEG. And in the past with the D90, D200, I was always in RAW, shooting that is.

OK, please remember this is my ATTEMPT, to have nice images... so, thanks again for the help... from and old film photog...

Pierre said:
Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

Ah ha! A voice of reason...

I shoot 100% raw and process on the computer, before exporting to JPG for final use that get sent to printer department with machines like large format inkjet, offset (still have one left), Xerox high speed etc, for magazines, document, poster, or web use.

While I certainly *could* shoot just JPG (especially when its going to be used on a poster sized thing like something that gets hung in a 2 story stair well to advertize an event), how I record the image is because I want to be able to give the printers the best quality image for the tasks they have to perform.

If I am going to do a portrait that will get used no more than 3"x5", then while a small JPG might be all I need, I do not know if that is the only use it'll get. I may need to produce something that is not just a 3"x5" but also gets used at six feet on the long edge too. Doing as much of the editing and cropping etc in RAW (largest size and maximum detail) lets me keep as much of the quality until I can reformat it into the right size and resolution for the end result(s).

Note the plural above.....

All you have to do is update the camera raw to 6.7 beta and your set supports the D4 and D800. Im sure it will officially released soon but meantime just use the beta version.

msmoto said:
Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom 3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files.

I could be wrong but I think I have read, Adobe are only updating L4 for the D800 and D4

LR4 is a big improvement on LR3 particularly the brush tools and the clarity shadow and high light sliders

msmoto said:What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

upgrade
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/06/adobe-lightroom-4-released-with-nikon-d4-d800-d800e-85mm-f1-8-support.aspx/

msmoto said:How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

TBH i think you'll find developing RAW of little use to you, as you can shoot with a D4 and 400 2.8 anyway, so won't need to get extra out of the files.

Maybe white balance might be of use.

I suggest reading up on raw and possibly getting the "raw without fud" instructional dvd. it was useful to me when I first looked into raw.

msmoto said:
... new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. ... What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed? ...

As I mentioned before, that's part of the fun of being an early adopter, you may need to wait for the vendors to update their softwares (probably at some cost).

In the mean time, you could save both raw and jpeg for the shots you think may be improved in PP for later. Storage is rather cheap.

I have keept all of my raws thinking that when my PP skills improves, I have the option of going back to my prefered shots and give them another workout.

The raw has so much more information that can be retrieved simply not available in jpeg.

Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

TaoTeJared said:
The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

Thanks for explaining.

I highly doubt 14 bit, I was just curious about the different sorts of RAW.

adamz said:
no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Thanks for letting me know.

Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. So, I am shooting in JPEG Fine, giving me 8-10 MB files before fiddling.

What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Gareth said:
You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

AS FOR JPEG VS RAW.

My kids teacher had some wedding shots done which were very nice. I offered to print one for her as prints weren't included in the package she got.

The photographer used a d300 and a 85 1.4. they shot the photo i want to print at f2.2 ISO400. so this shot should look good.

when viewing at 100% (approx print size) I can see horrible grain, aliasing and noise. I asked for the RAW file to maximise for print, but it has been deleted.

I am a bit gutted as I could end up with a MUCH better print if I had the original RAW file, but with the jpeg I am limited. The photographer says that the file is the maximum quality, but I think they ran it through post to add pop, and in doing so added noise.

IMO, the photographer should offer RAWS for print, and stipulate this in the contract.

The teacher is still happy to have the pic printed, and I am having it framed very nicely, so it should look good from a couple of feet away, but up close, not as good as it could.

Not a question of RAW or jpg, I was just curious about RAW.

How much data are you losing when you move from 14 bit to 12 bit?

And if it does not specify what type of RAW file it is, can I assume it's 12 bit?

I'm asking specifically about a D40.

Thanks.

Hi DaveyJ,

I think for your purposes and tastes, JPGs are fine.

It's not a 'one size fits all' world; I have a lot of caps that prove that.

For me, I like to take my RAW images and tinker with them as I would (with some anguish) in the darkroom, only now I'm enjoying it more.

Layer masks, HDR, a slew of other things are better done with RAW files as the beginning ingredients.

Somehow I think we lose sight that everyone has their own way to get to their where their going.

My best,

Mike