Izzat a hand sticking out of the left side (his/her/their left side) of his snout?

Erich, I'd have thought you'd crop on the left of the frame, but you clearly said right side. Could you post the one you submitted for judging, just to help out this easily confused old fool? And I'd love to see the winner in any event.

If this is "a bit crude," I shudder to think what comes next. I'd say excellent.

SUCCESS!!!

I'd had trouble with a very low profile Breakthrough 77mm CPL on my 24-120 Nikkor getting stuck. I'd taken it to my local camera shop a few months ago, and they removed it for me, but it got stuck again. Today I finally had success in removing it, with a rubber band and my cheap filter wrench (which I'd thought was broken, but suddenly appeared unbroken).

I think the key was putting the 1/4 inch wide rubber band around the filter, placed so that the edge of the band indicated where the edge of the non-moving half of the filter was. Then, the wrench got traction as it never had before, and the filter came loose.

I have thought most of your graphics were interesting, but this one grabs me much more than the others I've seen. A pretty spectacular result.

Wow, I love it, Jack. When I downloaded it, to see it better, it was cropped by my small browser window, and I think I loved that even more. (You said one could mess with it if they told you how. I don't take any credit here; it was simply dumb luck.)

Sam's Mess

(Download)

Great idea! But be sure to include the exif when you post the results!

Why can't someone profit from information about a target range of shutter speeds for blurry waterfalls, and use examples as a takeoff for their own test shots? If a successful image uses 1/x secs shutter speed, I'd know I probably didn't have to look at 1/10x. I've only been pursuing photography for about 70 years, the first twenty or so with a handheld meter, but I've only very rarely sought to shoot a blurry waterfall, so that sort of information would give me a starting point for my own investigations. And, again, what exactly is the harm?

Amen, my brother.

I certainly know why I liked the results the other photographer got, and why I liked the results that I got, but I've no idea what the other photographer was thinking. You have to understand: I'm getting on in years, and my mind-reading faculties have slowly deteriorated to virtually nothing.

I wonder if that OXO would work on my Breakthrough 77mm X4 Circular Polarizer; it is stuck again!

The Sensei filter wrenches failed - both of them broke as I tried to loosen this thing. (The guy at the camera shop evidently had no trouble last time.)

[quote=cbtsam] error

I know I'll regret it, but I'll step in.

I can recall reviewing several lovely images of a photographer whose name I cannot recall, all of which were shot at f/22. I can recall being taught that, at f/22, one runs the risk of diffraction ruining the result, so I avoided it. Having reviewed this photographer's examples, I decided to give f/22 ... and, yes, even f/32 ... a try. The results have often been quite satisfying. I, of course, have no idea why that photographer chose f/22, and I don't give a rat's refuse. Still, I learned a lesson I have found useful, though I am nearly 150% certain others here will say I have erred.

Nice advice, except that, typically, I don't have that option when I see a photo in a magazine.

# 3