If I'd shot a wedding, I'd be very happy with results like that. So much potential for disaster! I think you did very well

I agree with MattMagic - the controller board is probably fried but if the data is valuable you can always purchase an identical drive and move the controller board over (or ask someone into electronics to do this for you). I've seen this done before with great success.

Good luck!

My editing typically involves slight tweak of exposure / black level, slight rotation to get horizons or vertical/horizontal references spot on (I never seem to get this perfect when taking the photo and it's something that really bugs me) then cropping to frame the image as I originally intended.

This may all mean I'm a rubbish photographer and hence rely on post processing. However, whilst I'm improving on my photography skills I'm happy to post process to make images I can be proud of.

Likewise, as others have also said, in addition to minor crops to frame an image nicely - I do crop to zoom; my current 200m lens isn't long enough for some shots but I'll happily drop some resolution in order to 'make' the photograph I had in my mind at the time I pressed the shutter.

Is this still available?

I'm tempted by the 55-300, although my bank may disagree.

PM on its way...

Thanks for all the comments. I may have to be more selective over what I back up online, perhaps using external storage to supplement this for the non perfect shots. I originally moved to online backup as it was simple and removed the reliance on myself to manually duplicate/copy/store but it's becoming clear I need to balance convenience and cost.

It's good to hear what others do - at least I know I'm not crazy to keep all this RAW data


Steve

Hi All,

For many years now I've kept most photographs I've taken. I have a house 'media centre' that also acts as a central repository for all documents/music/photographs. This then backs up the important data (esp photographs) overnight to an online backup provider (SpiderOak)

Recently I moved to a DSLR and inevitably I now shoot mostly in RAW.

My question is:-

Do most of you shoot in RAW, perform post processing, render to JPEG and delete the RAW versions? Are you perhaps selective, storing some RAW and some JPEG? Do you keep all your RAW files?

I've always enjoyed keeping everything I've shot - as I don't know when in the future I may value even a poorly taken photo (for example, shots of family).

I can see storage (and more importantly backups) soon becoming a major issue if I keep all my RAW files, but - as I'm still learning I don't entirely trust my post-processing ability so I'm hesitant to delete. Yes, storage is cheap but offsite backup not so cheap

Just curious what others do ...


Steve

Slightly off topic - but I'd love to see some comparision shots between the current range from K-x to K5; same scenes, same lenses, same photographer, same exposure etc.

I'm still loving my K-X (although have experience of nothing better) but I'm definitely very much aware that the weakest part in my setup is me.


Steve (still busy learning and investing in glass before considering a body upgrade)

I'll have a play with metering and perform some side by side tests.

I guess I can't really complain for £15 anyway

Steve

ok, I have one example taken randomly yesterday - but I have others which are all lacking contrast / over exposed in a similar way. I can improve things dramatically by some post processing of the RAW files but I'm confused how the auto-exposure can be wrong. If anything, with such a bright sky, I'd expect the camera to underexpose to compensate.




f/14.0, 1/60 sec, 42mm, ISO 100 (other EXIF should be intact)

I must admit I haven't compared lenses side by side, but this does seem different to what I'm used to (kit 18-55, 50-200, 35mm prime).