As I wrote before, this week really was all photo all the time and while it tested the patience and love of Sarah it really represents cresting a bit of a threshold for me in the photography world. I've been published already but this was the first time it was real money. Then to actually see it in a two-page spread to start a feature story blew me away. All of you for whom this is old hat, please bear with me and my afterglow.

After Sunday's impromptu session with Joe McNally it was almost like I had already received my $50 worth of instruction without going to the Tuesday night presentation and demonstration given by Joe. But there I was in the front row with some fellow Strobists enjoying a cracking slideshow, Joe's insights and war stories and then an hour of Joe trying to wrestle Nikon's SB900s into putting out enough light for a model session right on the stage.

The talk, hosted by the nice crew at Vancouver Photo Workshops, was very well attended with all of the downstairs auditorium at the MacMillan Space Center filled to capacity. The couple hundred photographers soon discovered how amiable, self-effacing and open McNally is -- we already knew that from meeting him on Sunday.

I got a cheque so that must mean that I will have a photo in this month's Pacific Yachting magazine (Dec 08). If I come across it in the news shelves I sense I'll be learning a lot about yachting in the Pacific.

Also, this marks the first time a magazine that has contacted me through a Flickr search has paid actual money. I've been published before but now I can say I've actually been compensated in spendable already-spent currency.

Look for my photo in the article about Howe Sound.

Links:

This is one of the shots I took Sunday at the Vancouver Strobist meet. No, Joe McNally was not anywhere near this shot (long gone at that point). But I like this setup anyway. My buddies Steve and Ian went high with an umbrella for key and another one low for fill against the backlighting of the window. However, I think when I shot this one I might have somehow missed the key light.

Joe McNally was nice enough to mention the Vancouver Strobists in his blog today. Our workshop leader for the day, Andrew got a mention so I guess we are that much closer to genius. You can also see the gorgeous shots taken by Joe of our model Cindy Fay near the bottom of the post along with a quick description of his setup. A lot you can do with two speedlights, eh?

At least I can say that I moved a light panel for McNally too if I never get up to anything else semi-famous.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention what a good hostess Jessica of Pacifica Photography was who generously provided us with space for the workshop and kept our energy up with snacks and liquids.

Both the Luminous Landscape and Nikon blogger Thom Hogan have weighed in on the new Nikon D3x -- the 24mpx DSLR that Nikon has aimed at pulling in the medium format market -- and Michael Reichmann and Hogan have concluded that the market positioning for this $8000 ticket item isn't there.

Hogan writes:

The Price
Bottom line: 12 million more pixels will set you back US$3000.

We can't talk about the D3x without talking about the D3 and pricing. D3 prices have been collapsing for some time. That's despite the fact that Nikon has not lowered the price to dealers (at least here in the US; not 100% sure about the rest of the world). That's a sign of very weak demand, as in at least one advertised price I could find, the dealer was selling below what they paid for the product. Now we get a camera that is really only different in the sensor (and FX sensors cost basically the same to manufacturer, no matter what the pixel count on them [yes, there's probably a modest yield difference, but not enough to justify much of a price change]), yet we have a substantive price increase. Anyone else see the problem with this picture? Nikon's asking us to pay more for the equivalent. I say equivalent because you can look at it this way: you can buy the same camera with either high ISO and dynamic range improvements, or you can have it with more pixels. For some reason, more pixels costs US$3000. Really?