You asked for hard criticism. That's what you got. Next time, if you don't want to be critiqued, don't ask for it. The photo has no real point of interest, you can not tell the human lying down is a woman, you don't even show her face, and even the DOG is looking away. That's simply not good composition, in my book. If a professional photographer comes in and says the picture is worthy of the Louvre, or Sotheby's sells if for $4,000,000, I'll gladly but grudgingly change my vote.

Famed Macro Photographer Douglass Moody, "Nikonian72"

Unless you have a modern (EOS) Canon body, many older film lenses made for your brand will work. The question is, is the glass really better than the comparable modern lens? It's a trade off - if you're OK with a 7 out of 10 quality match, paired with a 20 to 40% price differential, they may be a good deal.

I have a couple of Pentax screw mounts from the 80's that are OK, but they simply don't match the quality of my modern Canons. They are the only MF film lenses that I've found work at all on Canon EOS bodies.

An abandoned house down the street has a rather colorful bed of red tulips growing out, right in the center of the lawn. I took a bunch of shots there this morning playing around, but I think the most interesting are a dozen or so I shot with a variable neutral density filter. I got down on the ground and shot up at the bulbs, with the 11AM sun high over my shoulder and behind me. I don't remember how much I had dialed in but it was probably up towards the high end. Apart from minor sharpening and cropping, I didn't do any other PP to these shots.

Hope you find them interesting. Download the originals for full size.

Tulips 1


Tulips 2


Tulips 3

Exactly. I guess if I'd had any cojones I'd have gone in and tried to find the attending Padre and sought dispensation to check out the view from inside.

I see a misshapen blue mass. No face, not even on the dog. Absolutely no interest in the shot. As far as MWAC is concerned, I think she's right. It's not even a good snapshot, for my money, and you asked.

All good advice so far. My $0.02 worth:

1) Go to your local Bookstore and look for any books by noted landscapers like the Muench's, Galen Rowell, even what's-his-name Adams. Use them for IDEAS on COMPOSITION. Read 'em there or buy 'em. Ditto for good mags like Az Highways, Outdoor Photographer and Nat Geo.

2) Rather than take one, when you get there, buy a cheap but serviceable tripod, that you can donate or just leave at the hotel. I'm talkin' a $20-25 thing here, that's all.

3) If you don't like Idea #2, buy a 1-pound bag of rice or beans or something similar to act as a foundation for your cam on the car roof, a stone, or whatever. With landscapes, you MUST have a solid platform. The merest camera shake, especially if using a telephoto, will ruin your shots.

4) If you feel really adventurous, RENT a UWA lens for your Nikon - something in the 8-25mm range. Make sure you can take it out of the country if you rent from a place in the US. Not sure what their regs might be.

5) if your D80 supports it, shoot in RAW+JPEG (large if possible) - if you get home and find a shot that seems ruined, it's possible that you can salvage it with the RAW file and a bit of PP. It's not like you'll be able to jump in the car and drive back over and re-take the shot.

6) Take several memory cards. Take several batteries and a European charger.

7) DO NOT CHECK YOUR CAMERA - TAKE IT AS CARRY-ON LUGGAGE.

8) DO NOT CHECK YOUR CAMERA - TAKE IT AS CARRY-ON LUGGAGE.

Have fun. Look at the scenery first then worry about taking a picture.

Interesting shot. You might see what it does if you crop out the branches to the left - it may make the center tree and the picnic benches more powerful.

Didn't know OK had hills - last time I drove across it (1985, I-80) it seemed flat as a two dollar pizza.

Across the street from the Presby church in my other thread from tonight is this Swedenborgian (??) Church of the Holy City. I had to do some messing with it to bring out the mid tones since the church is made of really dark stone, and it was in shadow as well. I could have waited for about six hours for better light but decided not to.. :)

This area of Delaware and South Jersey was of course, first settled by Swedes. They established northern Delaware, Swedesboro NJ, Ft Elfsborg-which-became-Salem, some Volvo dealers and then were pushed out by the English.

(and yeah, I know - I lost the very top of the steeple. Damn...

Church of the Holy City, Wilmington DE

Interesting - I'm pretty much in favor of #2 as well, I was curious to see if anyone liked #1, and if so why. I have to admit I didn't even notice the damn lens flare until EW pointed it out. Thank you all for the comments. I just liked the combination of the geometric light and dark shapes, and the perspective. We've all seen millions of these kinds of shots, I don't think I did anything especially creative.

Here's another view of a different chunk of the portico or whatever it's called. There are actually two parts, with a zig-zag in the middle.

Bottom shot shows the whole wing.

Archway

Yeah - just like regular sunglasses, there are times when wearing them, or "it", indoors makes you look like a chump. outdoors in bright sunlight, that's the ticket.

The thing about a RAW file is simply that it's what your sensor records. Virtually all DSLRs, after you press the shutter, will do SOME processing of all that data to make a JPEG file - adjust colors, shadows, highlights, flesh tones, maybe sharpen or soften a bit, all depending in WHICH, if any, "Shooting Mode" or Picture Style you select. In many cases, it does just fine, and your JPEG is perfectly serviceable.

The RAW file, on the other hand, would look like crap if you could see it. What you see in a "RAW FILE VIEWER" or whatever, is a JPEG thumbnail of the RAW data. Now, this JPEG is not the same as selecting "JPEG" as a file output type. It's a scrunched down, slightly cleaned up version of the RAW file.

RAW files are useful if you LIKE or NEED to do a lot of post processing. They let you work with ALL the data your sensor recorded.

But very often, you can get perfectly good shots just using the FINE or LARGE JPEG option in your camera, and understanding what your various picture styles or modes do.

Not sure which of these two works best. Thoughts?

Westminster Presbyterian Church, Wilmington DE.

Arches 1


Arches 2

Interestingly enough, just a few years after prohibition was repealed, possession and use of marijuana was made illegal. Know who makes the REALLY big bucks out of illegal drugs? It ain't that stupid jerk selling ounce-bags at the playground.

My point was that making things that people like to do ILLEGAL never works. It simply puts huge amounts of money in the hands of bad people, and ruins the lives of otherwise law-abiding people. Not to really change the subject but there are states where you get a LONGER mandatory jail term for possession of two ounces of grass than you do for manslaughter or rape. That's asinine.

Yeah, that'll work. Just like it did for alcohol...
Not trying to be a smart ass but prohibition of 'vices' that people like to do never works. All it does is criminalize otherwise law-abiding people, and create huge moneymaking opportunities for organized crime. You don't think Al Capone and the Mob got that way just by running numbers and whores, do you?

In any case, I also stopped about 2 1/2 years ago, about 2 hours before the heart attack that put me in the ER. 35 years of 1+ pack a day. Haven't had a puff since, and luckily, no great urge to either.