Hello Sandy and a very big Welcome!,
I have been actively involved in photography for over 50 years, both as an amateur and also as a professional.
Even after all that time , I still learn, something new, virtually every time I come on to UHH.
I love your pic, the first thing that hit me was the correct use of lighting. I don't think it matters, in the least, how long one has been involved or what qualifications one has gained. We can all learn something from the experience of others and learn to look at a subject through different eyes. I am sure you will gain a great deal of enjoyment from being involved with UHH. For me it is certainly the best forum I have ever found. Norman

Hi MMC,

I think you have done an excellent job!. I have been to St Petersburgh in Russia several times ,( going again on May 8th). A perenial problem there, they seem to be trying to block out light with overhead power cables. I too have spent many hours cloning out the cables. It's time consuming but the results are well worth the time and effort.
I think you have done an excellent job here. Keep it up. Maybe after my next trip, I could forward all my photos to you and save myself a few hours work !! All the best. Norman

Hi Mike,
Once again, some beautiful images, How many times did you visit these locations before you found conditions to be perfect?. Have you tried putting a 'black' border round them, I have tried with some of my images and the effect seems to be to increase the saturation.
Yosemite really is a magnificent location, you are indeed, a very lucky man to be able to spend time there!. If only I could ever get there ...still, we live in hope. Once again congratulations ,truly superb shots. Norman

Hi,
If I may , I would like to comment on image number 1 ( Seattle).
Although I agree with the comments about watermarks, My reason for replying to you is this.
The Seattle photo is good, however, had you shot this whilst there was still a little ambient light left in the sky it would have been given an added dimension! It doesn't need much light but just a little can give added depth to what is great photo. Best wishes. Norman

Hi, It's the other way round.! Norman

Hi Dellen,

As Wendy said, Get a clear shot, the grass is far too close to your subject. If you are hand holding set the ISO to give you reasonable shutter speed, If you shoot at 400mm ideally you need at least 1/500th sec. I too use the same lens, I have attached an image I took hand held, it shows just what your lens is capable of!!!. Norman

Robin, shot from about 60 feet.

Hi Winterrose,

I strongly suspect that the overall lighting in the room consisted mainly of Flourescent Lights !, am I correct?.
A greenish tint is almost inevitable where flourescent light is present. A filter is available to correct this, I'm sorry , but for the life of me, I just cannot bring to mind the filter number.
A similar problem occurs when shooting with predominantly tungsten lighting, the difference being that tungsten shows up with an 'orange' cast, again this can be corrected by the use of a filter.
If your camera can shoot RAW files, then problems like these can easily be corrected with the colour temperature slider.
I do hope this helps. Norman.

Hi,
Nice pic, personally I would have tried to get the tower on the thirds position, but hey ! its a cracking photo.
Seems like you have the same luck with the weather as I do when I go over to Blackpool. I presume that this is a HD shot?, For me it is so typical of the town Nice one!. Norman.

Hi Deanna,
Welcome. What a lovely photo.! This what is called 'contra jour', that is photospeak for shooting into the sun, a notoriously difficult thing to do successfully. You have managed to achieve this without any lens flare. Can't wait for more from you.. Norman

Hi Chickie,
DOF, in other words Depth of Field, or depth of focus, is the amount of a photograph that is in focus.
This is an extremely useful aspect of your camera, it gives you complete control over which areas are sharp and which are slightly blurred. For example with a portrait ideally you want your subject pin sharp and the background out of focus, a wide aperture
( Av on your settings dial,). f2.8 or f4 will give this effect, whereas f16, f22, f32 etc will give a very great depth of focus as you usually want in a landscape shot. The best way to understand it, is to put your camera on a tripod and take several shots at different apertures of the same scene. It really is as simple as that ! Good Luck. Norman

Hi Steve,

That top pic is magic, I too use the same 'L' series lens, image quality is second to none. Certainly worth a place in Nat Geo magazine!!! Norman.

Hi PK and welcome,
I love the photos!, may a make just one point that leapt out at me?.
In the first photo if you can manage to get your hands on a circular polarising filter, not only the reflections in the water would be reduced but because the water is so clear you would be able to see through the water. That would , I believe , add two things, firstly it would add another dimension to the image and secondly, put your image head and shoulders above the norm!.
So many photographers just see a scene, think, that looks nice, then shoot away. I say STOP!, look closely over every aspect of the scene then say " What would I like to show in my image"?
Personally, I would rather shoot 10 images that I know will be what I want, rather than shoot dozens and dozens in the hope that one or two will look really exceptional.
Photo 2. This is landscape photography at it's absolute best.!!!. Not only is the framing very good, the exposure bang on! but in addition, the lake creates a 'lead in' line that takes the viewer to the mountains beyond. Truly an image for your wall !
The last photo,
Using an atomiser spray to add a few globules of water, not only freshens up the flower but gives it real appeal to the viewer.
Quite exceptional images.. Cheers, Norman

Hi Gerald,

What a great pic!, I hope you don't mind, I have tried to sharpen up the bird itself. It appeared to be a little soft. See what you think!. you demonstrate very good control over the depth of field!.
On personal note I wouldn't have cropped it so tight, so that the bird did not appear to be looking out of the frame.. I feel so jealous of your forthcoming trip. it is somewhere that is also on my bucket list. Hope you have a great time !. Norman.

Hi George,
When I have been approached to sell images. Before I discuss a fee, I firstly consider what the chances are of that person coming back for more. Insist that you are credited with the photos, if you are giving up all claim to copyright, you should be adequately compensated. Don't get the idea that you can charge extortionate fees, because they will just go elsewhere. Be realistic, don't undersell yourself but don't try to retire to the Bahamas off this one job. You can undersell yourself, and if someone thinks that you are too cheap, that also can have a bad effect. I wouldn't like to suggest a price not knowing the market where you live, Try to do a little research first to give you a more informed idea. The best of luck my friend, could be the start of something big !!. Norman

Hi, I used a Bronica ETRS for years and years as a Wedding Photographer. Not once in all those years ( 10) did it fail me in any way!
I once read a comparison report between Bronica lenses and Hassleblad lenses. the difference was in the resolving power. The 'Blad' was better by something in the order of 3 or 4 lines per mm. I have excellent eyesight, and I was unable to detect any difference in image quality. except in the price that is!.
Without doubt Bronica equipment , in my experience, is second to none and is totally reliable, robust in manufacture and equipment that you can completely rely on in all conditions!!!.
I always used a seperate meter and metered for an incident reading, Pure white wedding dresses are not the easiest images to record, however, in ten years and countless weddings, the results were always the same. Lovely bright images with quite unbelieveable definition in the detail Norman