Hi Rod,

For your 1st photo, would you consider using ISO1600 and 1/500th of a sec.? As you know, a higher shutter speed than 1/60th of a sec could increase the frame rate of the D3.

All the best,

Albert

Hey Rod,
Great Blog. "I suck", Man do I know the feeling sometimes. And thanks for admitting your Fu, oops I mean mess up. It took guts. Keep up the great work and if ever in Detroit I'll buy you a Starbucks!
-Bryan Mitchell
www.bryanmitchell.com

The wide shot may be overexposed, and the photographer in me feels your pain, but the composition -- showing empty, dead water in all the lanes around him, and the hint of those behind him -- make it a winner nevertheless. The first one does nothing for me, but that wide one captures the moment.

Shot RAW! The D3 when coupled with Adobe Camera RAW has the ability to pull back detail from exposure errors like you wouldn't believe. Everyone tries to get images out as fast as possible but the workflow doesn't take that much longer than working with JPGs. Granted, you’ll be working with larger files but the flexibility for down the road outweighs these problems by a ton. I don't know why more photogs don't shoot RAW.

RAW truly brings the darkroom back to the computer, if you're concerned about image manipulation and compositing, don't give the photogs PhotoShop, give them LightRoom. It is a very powerful "digital enlarger" that allows for the removal of spots "cough" dirty sensors however, it won't allow you to create award winning "National Enquirer" photos.

all I hear is Michael Phelps

isn't there another swimmer there somewhere?

I mean, sure the guy is good, but man am I sick of him already.

He's like Sydney Crosby is to hockey

I think the real question is why doesn't a $5000 camera give you a better exposure.

Give yourself credit that you realized the correct image. The distance that Michael is ahead is all that NBC is talking about

Hi Rod,

These shots look great to me! I see white in the water and the sign in the background and black in the thing in the upper right corner. Steve was right about the RAW files, but I'd suggest the Capture NX software for conversion, so much better than the Adobe raw converter in term of file quality! But I'm sure you know this already. Really great shots, no worries I say!

Excuse me, why aren't there any photos of Natalie Coughlin?

Hey Rod, we've all done it, bud. Look at it this way: You're there and I'm not. ;)

Dale, $50 or $5000, if the settings aren't there it won't expose properly. I suspect that if cameras could shoot by themselves then we'd all be out of jobs. Ha!

You've come a long way...especially from our early days of photography while at the UW. These are certainly a significant improvement over the pictures we put in the Husky Band slideshow.

Really enjoy your postings.

Hope you get to eat more than espresso and cookies.