When I used to shoot in JPEG, after editing the file, I would save it as a new, separate file (ex. 001--the original file was saved as 001a). I believe I maintained the "integrity" or the original file that way. If I'm wrong please correct me.

When I went to RAW, I also started off shooting RAW + JPEG; that changed when I saw what I could do with a RAW file and shot only RAW. Now the only time I shoot RAW + is when I'm shooting a model and I will give her the JPEG files (if she can't have the RAW files processed).

Have you tried straightening in Adobe Camera RAW? You can even do it for JPEGs. ACR is my go-to for straightening (and I use PSE).

I use filters to protect my lenses; it is a holdover from my days of shooting film. After I went digital I read that filters will degrade photos. I did some basic testing to see if it was so (I taped a newspaper to the wall and photographed it with my various lenses with and without filters). I am not a pixel peeper, but I did not notice any degradation in the photos with filters.

As many have stated, it's a depth of field issue; f/2.8 will give you a narrow depth of field. That can be good in a lot of situations. The example would be out-of-focus people in the bleachers (a distraction) while your subject is tack sharp. To keep players in focus (and the background out of focus) perhaps shoot at f/4 or 5.6 and adjust your ISO accordingly. For sports I do not think you want to go below 1/1000 shutter speed.

I did a model shoot and shot RAW + JPEG in order to give her the JPEGs. She asked why I shot that way and told her that I could get much more detail out of the RAW file than the JPEG. She asked if I would be willing to send her a RAW photo I processed so she could compare it to her JPEG. Yes, by doing a simple edit in Adobe Camera RAW (I use Elements) I was able to bring out the texture in her hair and other details in her clothing. She agreed there was much more detail in my photo than in the comparable JPEG.

I think I would crop the first two photos to show more bird and less surroundings. I think the second photo has too much empty space (background) above the bird.

Eons ago I used a half-frame camera and the color photos I had processed were standard size for the company that processed the film and photos. I don't think they worried about aspect ratios back then. When I processed my own black and white I could (and did) enlarge to 8x10.

Back when I was stationed in Germany (1972-75), they changed the camo on all the vehicles with the change of the seasons. Shades of green and gray in the summer, but winter really amazed me; it was various shades of brown (like mud) with some white thrown in. I was stationed in northern Bavaria (Ansbach) and we only had two snow storms in the 3 winters I was there. We brushed the snow away with brooms! Totally off topic, but I'm an old man now and I don't care!

I'm glad I read further into the responses, because this is also mysuggestion.

I'm also from Manchester, CT. Nice photo!

I use WP exclusively. Years ago someone gave me a desktop on which they installed Word ("because it is the industry standard"). The person couldn't understand why I installed WP and continued to use it instead of Word. When using Word it would transfer whole paragraphs to a new page. WP never did that.

I haven't used Word in years; I used WP for desktop publishing; I had to do a monthly newsletter and WP made it easy (including importing clip art). With WP it was WYSIWYG.

I've used a diffusion filter in the past for portraits (especially in my film days). I still have the diffusion filter but I never use it anymore. Like many others, I "diffuse" the skin in post processing. Why? A diffusion filter softens everything, including the eyes. I like the eyes to be sharp and crips. I can minimize (to an extent) wrinkles etc in older people through lighting techniques and further minimize it in post processing. I don't like the portrait to have, what I call, the "Barbie look" (where the skin looks plastic or worse). So I play with the photo until I get it "right".

Another RAW 100% (except for the one camera that doesn't shoot RAW); I enjoy post processing just as much as I enjoy taking the photo. I used to shoot JPEG, SOOC and was unsatisfied because of the results. That's why I learned PP (or as much as I have learned!)

I think UHH is a great place to ask for advice. I've asked a number of times about companies with which I am not familiar. I've been given good advice, from people who had experience with companies, that helped me make a decision. Unfortunately, UHH has become increasingly snarky since I joined a number of years ago.