Three hundred dollars?

THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS??????

Seriously, what is going on in the marketing department?

Please tell me it's a misprint with a bonus zero?

The fact of the matter is that you can't tell anything much about a picture 1000 pixels wide. Inevitably, therefore, it'll be judged on the merits of the image, not what it was taken on.

I agree with Kris. The highlights appear bright, not quite blown, on my monitor. But without seeing the amazing detail the 645D is capable of, I'm not sure this image is especially representative.

Shame it's a bit too far away to see if it's full frame.

Terrific shots, as usual. Thanks too for giving so much detail of your workflow.

I agree.

I haven't had any problems with the site. I wonder if it's because I use FireFox and AdBlock Plus - it's rare to have to see any ads at all, since I just block any new ones that get past my filter settings.

Though when Canon ads started appearing a few weeks back it did amuse me.

The trouble with all the fancy electronics is that it takes no account of subject movement.

It doesn't take much of a breeze for all the leaves to move slightly between exposures. At a distance, you can't see it as blur, so much as a slightly unsatisfying lack of detail.

Seriously, HDR mode has its place, and if the subject is really still, fill your boots by all means. And I agree with having Expanded Sensitivity and Highlight Correction switched on.

But there's so much detail in the shadows with the K-5 that I do think it's simpler, simply to expose for the sky you don't want to burn out, and pull up the shadows afterwards.

Its better with raw, but far from impossible with JPG too.

I would think it's the Centre-Weighted metering that did it.

Sunlit clouds reflect a *lot* of light - they're incredibly bright, much brighter than blue sky.

The centre of the shot is quite dark, so if the exposure chosen by the camera was weighted to that, it's not surprising it blew out the sky.

Switch on the Highlight/Shadows feature, and use the multi-segment metering option rather than CW or Spot (which would have been even worse).

I'd guess you were thinking that you wanted the detail in the far bank to be exposed right, and of course it is. However, that approach will often result in blown out skies.

Happily, retrieving detail (especially from raw files rather than JPG) from dark areas is often very successful with the K-5, so although multi-segment metering will get you darker centres and foreground when it's compensating for the bright sky, you can recover that usually.

The other thing is... *one* memory card?????????

Just one?? How many pictures did he take for goodness sake?

I suppose you can get a lot of JPGs on a biggish card. But the pattern is starting to fit, isn't it.

They did take a gamble, for sure.

But I don't think it follows at all that if you're not paid, you shouldn't be expected to give a professional service.

If they really were doing him a favour by letting him do their wedding, then effectively they were paying, and if he's a budding pro, he should be professional whether or not it's actual money he's getting.

They've sure paid now.

Yes, it's the leaving it there for a week that made me think he was a moron.

Any one of us can make an honest mistake, no matter how apparently unbelievable. But the not bothering for as long as a week, for something as important as someone's wedding, just beggars belief.