A question: There has been a discussion concerning the best way to sell photos to the general public ... matted only, or matted and framed. Those who lean toward the matt only explain that the photos can be sold that way for a more competitive price, and the wrong fram (color, size, etc.) might turn off more buyers than it attracts.

Any thoughts on this? I suppose that one approach is to matt the photos, offer than at a fair price, and have a framing service available for those who prefer it.

Most of these comments involve camera/lens offering auto focus. Nice if you have it, but in my case only one of my five or six lenses is an auto-focus. That's the one that came with the camera, (Pentax K2000) and it's OK, but not the top of the line. I have to manually focus all of my other lenses, although the little "In focus or not in focus" dot in the viewfinder does work even when the lens being used is not auto focus. I use tri-focal glasses, with the lines, but one of my eyes - the right one - has 20/20 vision in all but closeup situations. Still, not bad for 81 years old.

Re: Wire Worm: Here is a different link that MAY be cleaner:

http://publisher.brothersoft.com/martin-vicanek.html

This takes you to a site that offers a number of Martin Vicamek;s software programs including Wire Worm. The program MAY not have some of the problems previously noted. Good luck.

Glad to hear it works that way. I do not use PS or Elements, so have to stick with some of the better separate programs, even with their limitations. Thanks for the further info.

The advantage offered by Wire Worm is that you have the opportunity to work on fairly small segments so you can do some quite precision work. There is a small photo in the lower corner showing what section of the picture you are working on, and you an move it easily. In any case, I have done all sorts of work with it, from removing labels and scratches from a highway Stop sign to eliminating scratches in a tile counter top and getting rid of a trash bin. I just find the whole thing fast and easy.l

Strange. My only experience with Wire Worm is as a plug-in supplied with a general processing program (not PS or any clones). I cannot understand why anyone would find this program, once installed, anything buy super simple. It has adjustment that adjusts the size of a circle superimposed on the subject photo. That circle is then moved to the beginning of the subject wire, power line, etc. Then the mouse button is pressed and held down. The circle is then moved along the wire as far as it will go until the wire heads in another direction or goes behind something else. At that point the mouse button is release, leaving the path of the circle on the image. Put the arrow on that path and, holding down the button, move it up, down or sideways. The selected area then mirrors parts of the underlying image, above, below, right or left. Then the substitute image matches the surrounding area, release the button the the selected part of the wire disappears. Tone and color matching is also automatic if the selection in a second box is adjusted.

I have the Worm in many jobs not involving wires, taking spots and small errors out of otherwise good photos. It have found it easy to use and superior in results. Keep trying.

Thanks for posting the Wire Worm link! I have it as a feature in another PP software, but may want to add it to other processing software as well. A very valuable program

I don't use Elements or PS, but one of my lower level processing programs includes a plugin called "Wire Worm". It's made specifically for your problem, and works like a charm. I would guess that it might be available separately if you search for it by name.

Actually, the wipes are free (one per customer) with each lens ... but the lens is marked up 100% over list. Keep this offer to yourself.

I use them too, MT, and buy them by the box at WalMart. Never have had a problem, and the wipes are specifically identified as being safe for optical lenses, including camera lenses.

Randy, you might try the Foxit Reader. It's free and often is easier and faster to use than Adobe. A web search should give you a link to a free download.

Glad to help. The U.H. really benefits many of us.

Well, a 10 mp should make a good 8x10, but its three times the size of my old 3.2 MP camera. I can use it to make an 8x10, but it is not top quality ... although perhaps OK viewed at a slight distance.

Proposed use makes all the difference. As several posters have noted, the further away viewers will be from the print, the larger it can be without showing apparent flaws.

I had AdoRama print an 11x14 on that paper, and was also pleasantly surprised and pleased .... once the print finished its final development. That's the one I mentioned that took well over a week to finish the job. It's the nature of the beast, not a problem with the printer. This one was a bit tricky since it was a HDR shot with a rather wide range of tones. Just FYI, I'm posting a much reduced version of that pic.

Sun on the Wood Duck Trail

Right MT. That's what I mean when I say that the little camera does a nice job of 5x7s, but not so nice on, say, an 8x10. For that I turn to my Pentax.

I always carry the old camera in my car in case I encounter a newsworthy photo opportunity. Again, the 3.2 Pixel ability is OK for most newspaper purposes. And I occasionally turn out a few note cards with a photo on the face. This pic. will probably end up there someday soon.