* * * * *
It was my answer to Linda, Billy. People can't help it but sometimes
they just are, anyone could be sometime or other....why? Was my
reply irrelevant?

* * * * *
Irrelevant

* * * * *
Thank you Billy! Right on! I was fortunate to be dropped by that bird after he got me to a place like that
because he sure was a huge one but I had to trust him being in no position to object to the ride.

Thank you minnie, the subj here was well over half a mile away, producing a file covering
a much wider area than wanted. Steady as the download shows itself to be, and cropped as it was,
I still have a file that looks good, but it was scary that so much came up this morning in folders
rather than little postage stamps, true thumbnails, (rather than that term used on UH when
things were plenty big enough for anyone to see). Couldn't even find the file at first!

Thank you Erich, yes they are rocks, in an area where there was volcanic activity,
but looking it seemed rather like something anciently constructed that had crumbled.
Thata was what I was hoping someone might see. Disappointing that it turned up
darker than reality...oooops reality...uh, what it is really, or as seen and photographed.
(whatever "reality" is anyway)

* * *
old basic stuff, not the answering the Q

Thank you minnie for your interest and a detailed look at it as you are able to see it.
Now if I go to pictures and open this file it comes up 8x12 on my monitor and showing a lot of
detail and subtle color (did this Nov. and color really was appropriately subtle and subdued,
which helps to separate it from the subject I think). Agreed too dark as it comes up on UH, some
new trick since Win10 upgrade mayhem, and never encountered ever on UH before about a week ago.
I then did the minimal adjustments of contrast that was the reasonable limit to emphasize the subject for the shot.

From the 8 x 12 when opening the file, hit "edit" then begin to enlarge up the scale, pixels don't really even
begin to show as pixels until halfway up the scale, and at that point the file is enlarged to over the 17 1/2"
horizontal dimension on the monitor. If wanting to pick any little squares out I would enlarge more to do so.

So why is this visual detail that is possible by viewing in any way, "empty" information? What in the world
am I missing? And the point is, I was not really refusing to cooperate to help people to view it by not clicking
for "download", but there's nothing really there that matters is there? It's from the 40-150 lens
(translated to approx. equiv. 80-300 full frame equivalent). I think "a pixel is a pixel is a pixel", what more is
there to see??
Cannot everyone else enlarge everyone else's pictures to see them better? Whaaaat am I missing?

Scusa Dave, much as I try to absorb "empty magnification", that term escapes me as
being incomprehensible. Please visit me soon and bring a hammer to "splain the term
or finish me off as hopeless. We "see what we see" when magnifying, and whether it
is a good file to print or not, noise, IQ, need for some little details to wipe out, and
this is all "empty"?

So I have a Q for everyone looking in, whether having replied or not.
What do you do when you want to look at a picture here more closely but
the Op has not given the go-ahead on a "download"? If that sounds like a
stupid Q, I simply hit download on my computer and pic. lands in the gallery
where I can enlarge the thing, (even to pixelate all over the screen), but can also
do some basic editing without putting into a program to do so.
Rgrenader, can you do this? Doesn't everyone do this? Not anyone?

BTW Bob, I really like all the photo info your 300mm great lens captured at f11 !

BTW Bob, I really like all the photo info your 300mm great lens captured at f11 !

May I add a couple to your thread?
Apertures are (round) circles of varying diameters. Circles used to be
larger/smaller, not "wider" and I realize some people have never
seen the inside of a film camera....
f/stops are not really "higher or lower" but larger and smaller as they
describe a PORTION of a totally open "aperture stop" (iris).

May I add a couple to your thread?
Apertures are (round) circles of varying diameters. Circles used to be
larger/smaller, not "wider" and I realize some people have never
seen the inside of a film camera....
f/stops are not really "higher or lower" but larger and smaller as they
describe a PORTION of a totally open "aperture stop" (iris).

* * * * * *
Yes, Bob, you're straightening out another bit of confusion there in stating the fl cannot be changed.
That's been darned near a daily occurrence at times on the main section where Nikon folks ask what
the difference will be in using a DX lens on a FF camera and vice versa. For the "last time", and no
matter how often explained there's a new joiner asking again and there is always only one answer.
A stated focal length is printed on the barrel. A 300mm lens is ALWAYS a 300mm lens, no matter
where anyone puts it!

Thank you Bob, I did adjust the contrast some but didn't dare go a
pixel's worth further without it looking "fakey".