It seems like I am the only one who agrees with you. I don't see how sunny 16 would work when nearly the entire image is different than the white bird. I could see adjusting the sunny 16 with a mental adjustment. But if you need to do this, you probably would not have a working meter due to a dead battery - and you couldn't get the image anyway.

I guess that there is a time and place for just about everything- the rule was valid at one time - but has limited use in the digital age.

It is a different spelling for bouquet; either a fragrance or a small bunch of flowers often tied together.

This must be a single flower bouquet (bokeh) with a lovely aroma.

Just another version of the same thing.

Cropped a bit of the area to where the bird was flying. I am not into the rule of thirds, but this crop puts the wing span through the left guideline with a centered head.

Thought that removal of the shadow made for less distraction and a cleaner image.

I am envious, I never even try for a bif.

Your image is a fine example for when Hogs ask for images with negative space.

The math is not correct.

In canvas resize, add an inch and a half on one side and another inch and a half to the opposite in order to turn the 2 inch dimension into 5 inches with equal bars on each side (or top and bottom). The diagram should be self explanatory.

Adding 2 inches to the height will just produce a 4X5.

I have not read the reason and I do not have NX2, but I had heard that ACR will not recognize NX2 processing.

No sure to whom you are referring. Cheap luster and expensive fine art are both regular papers - just purposed for slightly different uses.

The 180 is a long lens for macro and your depth of focus may be very small.

The problem may not be the lens not holding focus, it may be simply that the lens is moving relative to the object more than can be expected for a lock on (even with OS). The problem may be in the holder, not the lens. Consider your technique before blaming the equipment. Lenses do fail, but probably not nearly as often as the operator.

Only sounds complicated - just takes a little exposure and a few tries.

In LightRoom and PhotoShop, one can soft proof before printing.

If I may borrow from Martin Evening: "When it comes to printing, color management usually can get you fairly close, but it won't be able to interpret every single color or make aesthetic judgements about which colors are important and which are not. Plus some colors you see on the computer display simply cannot be reproduced in print. This is where soft proofing can help. If you use the Custom Proof Condition dialog as described (PhotoShop) you can simulate on the display accurately how how the print will look when printed. Soft proofing shows you which colors are going to be clipped and also allows you to see in advance the difference between selecting a Perceptual or Relative Colormetric rendering intent. All you have to do is to select the correct profile for the printer/paper combination you are about to use, choose the rendering intent and make sure the Black Point Compensation plus the Simulate Color (and by default simulate black in) are checked."

The above quote is from Adobe Photoshop CS6 for Photographers. As a personal note, this feature also works well in LightRoom. I do just about every thing in LightRoom, but I do not use this feature there because I prefer Photoshop for printing.

I hope this gives you enough information - or at least a beginning to look further.

It works well for me because I use fine art paper on an Epson. The soft proofing seems to take into account that the papers are more creamy in color.

Two things that have not been mentioned:

Are you processing in one color space and then trying to print in another?

Are the printers profiled?

Also note that even on a calibrated monitor, colors and tonality are not always correct when shown on UH.

If your software soft proofs, consider using it.

Another consideration is that bringing up the exposure in a low key image will increase noise.

Sharpening will also bring out noise.

An additional consideration is that long exposures bring up noise - not just show blurriness.

If I understand your question, the answer is simple.

In the left panel of the Library module, click on the folder that has the images you want to move.

With the images showing, drag and drop the images that you want to move. Drop them into the folder where you want them.

The images you want to remain in the first folder will still be there and the dropped images will be in the desired folder. This will neither copy or delete images.

This may answer your question:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/#.U4qZICignpU


There is much more information if you direct your browser to TIFF vs raw.

You seem to be helping make my case. In LR, it does not matter when you sharpen. In fact, because it is one of the things diminished in raw capture, an argument can be made to do it early.

" Sharpening should always be the last PP thing you do to a photo."

As a general statement, that is correct. In LR, at export, all the adjustments are essentially applied at the same time; it, therefore, does not make any difference when sharpening is applied in the LR Develop Module. It remains a non destructive function.

My comment refers to LR which is a proxy editor; there is no intention of undermining digital photographic concepts.