Good sample gentoo. Actually Capture NX does smarter D-Lighting than any firmware I know and it is always better to live it for post processing in my opinion, especially for JPEG.
On the other hand flashes could give very good results if used with good setup which includes umbrellas, bounced light, soft boxes, or diffusers.

This was done with a point and shoot camera. A friend of mine sent me this picture to "fix" it. Here's the before D-Lighting:

and here's after:

again, this was just with some point and shoot she used.

I usually fill in the shadows in post processing using Capture NX's D-Lighting which works very well actually, even when doing JPG's.

Well, yes and no. How about it being used as fill flash?

Like the way Joe McNally uses like 6 SB800s in his compositions.

Anyway, I haven't learned enough about flash yet, so I'll have to leave that aside as well.

I never use a flash even for people. I don't like the unnatural light and colors produced by flashes.

Slightly off topic here, but I do notice that I hate taking pictures of people. Because for some odd reason I can't get it right. Willis, you hit it on the spot. My pictures somehow turn out to be unnatural or uneven. So, I avoid taking photos of people at all cost.

It might be because I'm limited by my equipment- no flash to bounce, poor lighting, no portrait lens, etc. I'll definitely give it a try eventually though.

willis I have to disagree and agree with You (I'm almost Your size and weight so be afraid :) ), for me photographing people is boring on one hand and easier on the other. In other words, I think that is much easier to influence the way people will respond than to learn how an animal will behave when You point a camera towards its eyes. OTOH I agree that You need a lot of emotions to capture people, but once again it is easier to create an emotion when interacting with people, much harder job to do when You interact with animals, where most of the time You are a documentarist. As gentoo wrote "...You don't have to provoke an emotional response out of a bird..." - it's very true, but OTOH in order to get good shoot You need to learn the technique how to capture the emotions that already exist.

but yeah... gear heads unite :)

BTW: Willis Your girl's pictures really rocks

LOL no need to be afraid. I'm 4 inches shorter than you and about 10 pounds lighter lol

Haha glad you agree with me Gentoo... ever since you posted that shot of yourself I've been scared of you... and I'm 6'4 260.

"Me... I will never be that photographer, which is why you don't see people in my shots. When you take the human element out of the equation, technique starts to become far more important (check out the photo of the day threads... how many actually have people in them... gearheads unite). You don't have to provoke an emotional response out of a bird, or a brick wall.

Every now and then, you get a hybrid photographer, like my Jarvis link above, who understand both composition and technicals. Those are the guys that will own the digital revolution."

Yeah I'd have to agree with this willis. Very well said as usual. While I am learning people shots, I will never be at the level your girlfriend is ( I think that's true for most people). The one thing I've discovered about people though, they are far less critical than those of us behind the camera and will be willing to pay just to make the photo "look professional". Some people just have that nack like you mentioned.

As far as birds go, that's a whole different technique entirely that requires different skills. Even those I'm still working on.

oh yeah...gear heads unite!!!

Nau & Gentoo... well said on both accounts. I want to revise what I said.

A pro photographer can make compelling shots even with a camera that only shoots in dummy mode. For instance, check out Chase Jarvis's iPhone photo gallery at http://www.chasejarvis.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=5&a=0&at=0

I'm a card carrying gearhead. I like obsessing over the latest gear which is why you see me posting incessantly here. For me the thrill of photography is mostly learning how to do things & exploit my camera to make the familiar new. Every now and then, I get lucky and make a great shot in a very artless way. Contrasting that is my girlfriend who actually earns her living as a photographer. (shameless plug http://www.rosyphotography.com/ )

She has the one key trait that, as a photographer, I lac, which is that she knows how to make somebody respond emotionally the way she wants. In fact, the only pictures of myself that I think look like me were taken by her. No amount gear head know-how will substitute for good composition & people skills, which are 90% of what you need to be a successful pro.

Me... I will never be that photographer, which is why you don't see people in my shots. When you take the human element out of the equation, technique starts to become far more important (check out the photo of the day threads... how many actually have people in them... gearheads unite). You don't have to provoke an emotional response out of a bird, or a brick wall.

Every now and then, you get a hybrid photographer, like my Jarvis link above, who understand both composition and technicals. Those are the guys that will own the digital revolution.

well about "dummy" mode
- since its all digital I do a lot of editing in post production to get same results
I use manual quite a lot but for snap shots auto works just as well since I know out of all the 'family' shots I might use only one or 2 and the best its gone be printed on 3x4 print
so why bother with manual since some times if you running around it takes few seconds to set it up and it might be enough to loose that perfect moment that you wanna capture

in short: I see nothing wrong with using AUto mode coz its quick and give acceptable results in most cases
M (manual) used only for pro work (if you wanna call it)

yes its important to have understanding of ISO, speed aperture etc but most people will be happy with auto mode and there is nothing wrong with it

p.s.
wrote this while I was doing 3 other things, sorry if its kinda all over :)))))))))))))))

"They know that all those guys with a digital Rebel strapped around their neck set to full auto"

I'm not an experience film shooter but I agree with this. I know it's not a big deal but nothing bugs me more than when I see someone with a DSLR and they have it set to "dummy" mode. I'm a big proponent as most of you know, of taking advantage of everything these cameras have to offer. That's one reason I'm always talking about picture controls and tweaking. That is the new film. Without Fuji Velvia, we have to set the colors we want. We also should at least have a working knowledge of how aperture, shutter speed, ISO and sense we're in digital, exposure compensation work. I forced myself to learn y shooting in M mode only when I had my D40. The transition to my D300 was a breeze for me for this reason. Now I prefer A mode unless I'm doing a long exposure then I go back to M.

Yes willis you said it better than I. We really need to create an edge that's uniquely ours and makes our work stand out.

I'm actually supposed to do a practice photo shoot with a girl I work with who models on Wednesday. I will of course share some of those with you all after I get them.

I think everyone above is right about Photography being more accessible. Post digital, there are simply a lot of photography business models that don't work any more (good luck earning a living in stock photography these days). Print, as a medium, is dyeing. When was the last time somebody gave you a wallet size photo of themselves? I don't have kids, but I imagine the thought of trading yearbook photos would probably seem quaint to them. Now they probably just go to facebook or whatever.

Media is also going digital. All those fine details that matter in print don't show up at reasonable sizes on a computer monitor (my HD TV has all of two mega pixels if I'm doing my math right. All this means is that the standard for a useable image is dropping while at the same time, there are a lot more people out there shooting.

So now, if you want to make money in photography, you've got to really know what you are doing artistically. In the past, being able to capture a solid usable image took considerable know-how... now it doesn't so the low end has been shaken out (Sorry lousy yearbook photographer who used to come to my high school every year... The PE instructor just got your job).

The good news is that all this extra interest in photography has spawned loads of cool new tools for people who want to get serious about composing a stunning image. With a D700 fitted with a fast lens, you can shoot indoors in poor light hand held. Now instead of lugging around giant lights and stands, you can lug around a SB-800 or six and do things on the fly that never used to be possible. With digital, you can shoot a football game and wireless transmit the photos to the press booth and it winds up on SI.com before the game is even over. In the digital age, you can call up clever you-tube video's showing you how to make a DIY soft box (insert overly expensive photography gadget here). In the digital age, Flash memory is cheaper than film (shooting JPEG's in my D40 at least).

My point is that yes, the digital revolution has squeezed out a lot of marginal photographers. Its always going to annoy those people when they go to a festival and see 20 people lugging a SLR around their neck that have no appericiation for what it used to take to make great photos. Real pros should be neither threatened or annoyed by the digital revolution. They know that all those guys with a digital Rebel strapped around their neck set to full auto still don't know the first thing about creating a compelling composition. They also know that they now have access to technical and artistic tools that can push their work to new levels.

IMHO; I still think taking the pic is by far the most important thing. There's only so much you can do with composition/exposure after a photo is taken. Blown highlights are blown highlights. And underexposure presents it's problems too; especially at higher ISOs (and I shoot w/a D3).

That said, I do think post processing is extremely important. It's something I do with all my photos (usually ACR/CS4).

indeed gentoo the post processing became at least (or even more) important as taking pictures

"I think one reason "long timers" can become so upset at the coming of digital, is because it makes their hobby sooooo much more accessible now. Granted, the gear is expensive, but if you're willing to take the time to learn the basics, you can do so much more now with photoshop an such, it's easy for more people to look like ansel adams."

Yes I would agree. However this now means that we now have to come up with a shooting style that will set us apart from the masses. The skill development has just shifted. A few things become easier, another becomes more challenging.

I think one reason "long timers" can become so upset at the coming of digital, is because it makes their hobby sooooo much more accessible now. Granted, the gear is expensive, but if you're willing to take the time to learn the basics, you can do so much more now with photoshop an such, it's easy for more people to look like ansel adams.

no?

It actually took more than 50 years for the film to mature (not stop developing but there where no significant new features on the media itself).
IMHO we are still very far from that in digital technology.

I disagree with saying that computers are slowing down in their maturation. Processors are still evolving and RAM has evolved so fast that the price has dropped substantially.

I think the digital market in Cameras will continue to surprise and intrigue us for some time. Things that are considered a luxury in DSLR's today will be standard in the not so distant future. (oops think I said this already).

I'm almost willing to bet that when the day comes when full frame takes over, Nikon at least, will have made it possible so all of us with DX lenses can take advantage of the full frame sensor some how. They have sensors with built in VR, why not sensors that move back or something when a DX lens is mounted? I'm sure somewhere Nikon is working on this. They've built their reputation on backward compatibility.

On the other hand, how long did it take for film to mature? I don't know enough about photography's history to answer it for myself.

It took 20 years for personal computers to mature enough, I guess it will be the same with digital photography.

When will digital mature? Do y'all remember when computers (PCs or Macs) got significantly new hardware every several months, and if you upgraded, you got significant improvements in performance or abilities. Now that's not so true. One of my boxes is four years old, and really not that much slower than my newer multicore box for most of what I do. (I used to upgrade OS as soon as possible. Now, my primary computer is still running XP. I'm not a Vista basher - I use it, too - and I have a copy of Win7 RC1. Neither are a great improvement over XP.) When will DSLR technology stop its rapid rise in performance, and become a more flat technology with just small incremental improvements from one model to another.

One of the advantages of digital is that it does not loose any data with copying, very much unlike analog where you loose data even on the first scan, so you can share or sell your experience with others. Digital has very much room to improve (not even color standards are consistently implemented yet for example); film has touched his limits about 50 years ago.
And movie ability and LCD screen (you could shift LCD on D5000 which is really helpful for me at least) are some great things that will never be available on film.
I am not saying film is completely dead and you should not be using it (it currently actually has raw picture quality comparable to the best of today digital) I am just saying that in a couple of years it will be just a curiosity, just like LPs are today.

The one thing I love about film (apart from its magic) is that it allows You to travel light. You just need Your camera, lenses and four AA batteries (on f100) and film of course - but that's pretty much all. With dslr, whenever You go to remote locations, You need to take much more - chargers, photo bank (or two) and a lot of different cables (not to mention sensor cleaning pads and stuff like this). Last year I went for 3 weeks to asia, and my camera bag weighted more than my backpack, not to mention the couple thousands pictures I needed to review after coming back - never had this problem with film. But, as I've wrote before digital gives us a lot of possibilities and is the future of photography, either one likes it or not.