Marlz

I did put several images up already and later indicted that #4 bothered me the most. I have to keep a perspective here. I never print anything. I only share with other photographer friends on Facebook, and I email to relatives. That's it. Mostly I just have a desire to know that I have mastered my camera, that I can get the most out of it. It is more of a personal skill goal that I have, not that I think my pictures will be totally awe-ful!! I don't even know what a APS-C sensor is. I am totally novice ...

Bipod

First, let me say that those are nice photos. They are certainly worth sharing on Facebook.

I see what you mean about #3: it gives the impresson of unsharpness. But when I download it, the rocks in the foreground are sharp.

What you have there is a scene -- a cliff and a river -- having enormous depth. When you maximize depth-of-field by selecting a small
aperature, you increase the ammount of diffraction, which limits resolution. This is physics--all lenses and cameras are the same.

It's a difficult subject, and I think you did well. The only thing that might have improved it was to focus a bit further out, say at the
tree that sticks out from the rocks. That way, the viewers eye would be "led into the picture" and have something to focus on.

In other words, you might have to narrow down the subject a bit--decide which part of the scene matters the most.

In addition, you might try sacrifing a little depth-of-field for more resolution in the middle-ground by using a slightly larger aperture --
but I'm not sure whether or not that would be an improvement. I'd have to try it.

Photography has limitations that are imposed by physical laws. No magic technology can get around the laws of physics. It''s you, the
photographer, vs. the laws of nature. So you have to get creative, and think of different ways to approach your subject, to get around
the limiations. You can't change the laws of light, but you can change your focus, your aperture, how you frame the scene, what you
choose to make the center of attention: rocks, cliff-top vegitation, river, forest, or sky. Each will give you a different photo.

Tourists take 10 photos of 10 scenes. Photographers take 10 photos of 1 scene--at leaste in their heads--until they find all the possible shots
latent in the scene. The more you look, the more you'll see. I pays to take your time and dig deep. The images you took are a very good
start.

Bipod

What makes photography so difficult is that the photographer is trying to capture in one exposure
what it takes the eye dozens of "exposures" to capture.

When you look at something, your eye doesn't just blink open and shut. It scans the image -- taking
multiple exposures and changing the focus.

Moreover, your two eyes function as a rangefinder, capabile of measuring distances out to a couple hundred feet.

All this data is fed into a supercomputer that knows that lemons are yellow, the sky is blue, trees are green and
water is blue and flows downhill. Any sense data to the contrary will be corrected (and you'll probably never
even be aware of it).

The eye is two motion picture cameras forming a rangefinder connected to a supercomputer connected to
and enormous database of what things are and how they are supposed to look and behave. But a camera
is just a camera.

Photography is inherently difficult.

Marlz

All very good points for the arsenal I am building on photography. It isn't even about the click that captures the shot. I'd love to get out and put into practice the things that have been offered on this forum, but now we are facing winter, and my fingers freeze, and I tend to rush everything I do, no time to think and experiment. And I know the risks of the elements on camera equipment. Wish it were spring ...