I believe it was in an UHH post that I read about Red River Paper's Polar Pearl Metallic paper. I'm going to order a pack and see. If it's as great as I've heard, I'll no doubt get a roll of it. More on Polar Pearl Metallic here: http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/66lb-polar-pearl-metallic-inkjet-photo-paper.html

According to one website, Kodak Endura Metallic paper is "Real photo paper | Exposed with light - never sprayed with ink." The site goes on to say "Kodak Endura real photo paper (Metallic and E surface) is a media that is exposed with light and then developed in the classic silver halide process used by professional photo labs worldwide." This tells me that you won't be able to use the paper in an inkjet printer. The website I'm quoting is: http://www.realenduraphotographs.com/

Kodak's own website refers to the paper as "Professional color negative paper" and talks about using it in your "lab." This, to me, is further evidence that the paper is not designed for inkjet printers. I could be wrong--it's been known to happen before.

I like the look of metal prints I've had down by Bay Photo, and am looking for some metallic papers that I can use with my Epson printers. I'm eager to learn more from this discussion.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have used Costco for lots of my printing, including the first photo book I put together. I feel their oversized enlargements are among the best available. I was talking strictly of having a photo CD made, and in my experience, even Costco scans the photos/negatives at a low resolution. You mileage may vary, but that has been my experience, and I've had CDs made at all three of the businesses I mentioned by name.

That said, it's best to scan the negative or slide directly. And if you ca find a photo processor who can scan onto CD/DVD at high resolution, then my suggestion below doesn't count.

In my experience, having Walmart (or Rite-Aid, Costco, whoever) put the images on a CD is a waste of time and money--except for archival purposes. The scan is usually at a very low resolution and trying to work the with images off the CD has, again in my experience, been very unsatisfactory. On the other hand, taking a clean 5x7 print, scanning it myself at high resolution, then working with that in Photoshop has given me some lovely images to enlarge and print.

Thanks for the recommendation. I have an Epson 9900 printer and have been using Epson rolls, but I'll have to try the Red River papers. They sound great.

Not sure if this is the same problem, but I have had the situation come up that photos I've taken will show up as I go through them in the camera, but won't transfer to my computer when I go to download them. What I've found is that if I do a directory search I'll find an .xmp file on the card. If such a file exists, the .nef (Nikon's raw format) file with the same name will not transfer. ie. if there is a 1004.nef and a 1004.xmp on the same card, the .nef file will not transfer upon downloading and the .xmp file doesn't transfer OR delete with the other files. You have to manually delete any .xmp files that show up on your card.

We recently bought CS5 and loaded it onto a desktop and a laptop at the office. Brought it home to load onto the desktop at home as well, which worked fine for about three sessions. Then I got an error message saying that I was only allowed two activations, and if I wanted to continue using the software (at home), I would have to deactivate one of the original two computers. Called the office, had one deactivated and immediately got a message at home saying that the home desktop was now activated. Aside from the technological wonders involved, if anyone still thinks there's any privacy in our world today, you're sadly mistaken.

I second that. About half-way between Phoenix and Tucson, Picacho Peak is certainly the most photogenic spot in the area. Here's my version, taken from the highway.

Picacho Peak

In the seven years I've had my digital cameras, I've tried HDR on a few (very few) occasions. That's with over 34,000 images taken in the seven years. For the most part, I agree that the images I see on various fora marked HDR are overdone, stylized within an inch of their life, and rather cartoonish. That said, I ran into one situation where HDR was exactly what I needed to get the image I wanted. I was photographing the Natural Pier Bridge across the Clark Fork River near Alberton, Montana. The bridge spans the river with steep canyon walls behind it, and, of course, the time of day had me shooting into the sun. I took three separate exposures and merged them in Photoshop to come up with an image that both pleased me and allowed for a balance between the bright sky and the dark canyon walls.

Natural Pier Bridge, Alberton, Montana--an exercise in HDR

I was born in Billings when my parents lived in Laurel. Love that part of the state. But Msla is my home now, and has been since 1975. Great scenery around here.

Sorry about that. For some reason I thought you were from the Flathead. I was talking about the Pepsi truck you posted.

Now that's the clearest explanation of f stops I've ever come across. Of course, it reminds me of the time I substituted in a remedial math class where I was supposed to teach the students decimal fractions. When I suggested that to get the decimal equivalent of 1/2, you should divide the 2 into the 1. Several hands went up, "Mr. Spellman, 2 doesn't go into 1." Oh well.

I love this old truck. You certainly have quite a few oldies but goodies in the K'spel area. I know--I've photographed a lot of them just driving around town.

Well, you got me. Decided to step outside and see what I might find that was red, white and blue, and ... DAMN! The battery on my Nikon is dead. Oh, wait, I have a camera in my phone, go figure. So if AOL ever gets the image that I e-mailed from my phone, I'll post the red, white and blue, right outside my gallery door in downtown Missoula--the red brick apartment building, the white of the Missoula County Courthouse, and the clear blue winter sky.