Nice find

It's funny that at http://www.arcsoft.com/en-us/software_title.asp?ProductCode=PS6 their photostudio6 package (image editing) says: "The program fully supports popular RAW file formats by Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Adobe (DNG), Sony, Kodak, Olympus, Sigma, Mamiya, and Epson". Tsk tsk

This was exactly the sort of step I'd expect a smart company to take - I think the development of software in-camera will hugely outpace hardware over the next few years

Might be worth working out where your sweet spot is photography wise, ie which mm. Then you might be able to focus in better on the old, economical lenses that'll give you a decent bang for your buck

Much better, great stuff

Just read what bwichmawr wrote - spot on.

Nonononono - do what Mike says. If you can show the work on a PC use a crop as he suggested, it's a lot more Macro. Point being you need to make it bigger than life size and if that involves a crop at 1:1 on a PC screen so be it

Whatever you did on your camera to get #2, that's the nearest thing to an in focus macro. Can you repeat and get the focus onto the front?

postedit: see Mike's example. 'nuff said.

Your assignment is an abstract macro?

Also, don't forget that the UK government has some very interesting definitions of who is employed and who is not.

Also, if those ladies did handheld shots inside the church they're surely fairly unlikely to be pin sharp at those shutter speeds regardless of image stabilisation. Do Canon kit lenses have the same slow shutter speed stabilisation stuff that the expensive lenses have?

One thing at a time Emma

Say there's "X" amount of light falling on your subject. All else being equal, with just shutter speed and f stop variables, as you move UP in f stops (ie f8 to f 22), you'll need to move down in shutter speed to let the same amount of light in. Moving UP in f stops is called making the aperture smaller.

With smaller aperture you get more depth of field (DoF). The smaller the aperture (ie higher the f number), the more the DoF you get. Wide DoF is good for many things. Landscapes usually have a wide depth of field because you're usually taking a picture of a scene which has nearby bits and far away bits, and you want both in focus. You can be creative and just have some of that in focus but that's just a creative choice.

Macro is a right pig. DoF is unbelievably narrow in macro, a fraction of a mm for some of the stuff I've shot. For example see this broccoli shot. So you want as wide a DoF as possible, ergo as high a f stop that you can manage using your light sources.

I must admit I don't use modes that much. I use manual stuff. TAV, looking at the book, means you have 3 variables, ISO, aperture and shutter speed. And by the looks of the manual it adjusts the ISO based on your chosen settings.

So for round figures sake, imagine you're using ISO 100. Say the camera thinks you need 1/100 and f8, but you override this and absolutely insist you need f22 (for greater DoF) but the same shutter speed, then the camera will compensate by setting your ISO to 800 for you. Because ISO 800 is a 3 stop difference from ISO 100 (8 times more sensitive), to compensate for F22 which is a 3 stop difference from f8 the other way (1/8 as much light)

This is probably remarkably unclear and confusing... there are books on this subject that will explain it much better than me

Bottom line - macro, use as low an aperture as possible. DoF is the bane of your life

He's not saying that. He's saying better gear = better enlargements. Which is kind of rather true, especially if they're crops. He's also saying better gear = more lowlight capability. Which is also kind of true in my experience. His reasoning, I think, is if you're calling yourself a pro then really you'd better have the tools to do the job - a complete toolset which is flexible enough to cope with unexpected issues.

Surely this isn't such an unreasonable thing to ask. I, for example, might get cranky, if I took my car for a service and all the guy had was a screwdriver - wouldn't you?