Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous. Again, you nailed 'em just right and didn't even have to use a grey card. Doesn't get much better than that. I know what you mean about the letdown. I've not gone as many places as I'd like but it is exciting to see all the new stuff and it's impossible to keep your camera down. Often, I've seen whole vacations through the eyepiece. Later my wife asks me if I "saw that," and I'll just to say what 'cause my eye was off wandering somewhere else. Travel is good. With a good camera, it's even gooder. Thanks.

gessman: Thanks for enjoying my pictures. Yes, staying on the move with a camera in hand may become a consuming activity, and stimulating, too. I know what you mean about keeping the viewfinder to your eye. Ha, ha. In fact, I find myself taking pictures without a camera as I stroll or drive around.

As to exposure, I seldom use a grey card. I consult the histogram to make sure enough values appear in the rightmost part of the graph (a little short of pushing up against the right side and blowing out the highlights). I try for a correct exposure in the camera.

Later, during editing with ACR and CS5, I apply simple computer techniques for setting the image grey point and the black and white points. These image settings produce a foundation for color, contrast, brightness, saturation, and overall tonality. I follow a fairly straightforward workflow.

Do you like Gypsies? I took a picture of two in Rome.

Okay, I called the local liquor store and managed to get a few empty bottles of which this is one. Salt Lake City was too far away for the time I had left and I wanted to shoot the Kennecott Copper Mine from the back side anyhow (not many people know how to get to this plateau) so I decided to play around with my lens and show you what I want to do with the whiskey bottle and the Temple.

Mind you that in this picture the mine is below the bottle so I had to hand-hold it and shoot slightly down whereas when shooting in the direction of the temple the bottle will be near or sitting on the ground as will the camera and I will be shooting slightly up.

The front to back focus is from about 8 inches to infinity. I focused manually to 3 feet with a 17-35mm f/2.8 wide angle lens set at 17mm and f/22, ISO 800 for 1/80th sec. The compression of the bottle is quite evident. The bottle is almost the size of a full 5th but here it looks like a shooter. Also notice how it seems to droop on the left side. I was holding it about 12 inches in front of the lens.

Now I am anxious to go to town, I am thinking of getting an empty cigarette carton, a bottle of prescription pills, a hash pipe, (Where I will get that I don't Know) and maybe a few joints (filled with "real" grass, the kind you find in everybody's front yard), and arranging it in such a way with the Temple in the background that a caption could be used - What a contrast - Everybody worships something.

Will do but I will not have time to compose and take the shot until later next week.

These shots take me back. England had a contingency of gypsies when I was over there. Those rascals were into everything. I hadn't even thought of that word in years. You sure captured the essence of how I remember them and the b&w is a deserving and appropriate treatment. Another excellent job.

Some pretty good points made by all. I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", sort of. Most things are overpriced in my opinion,but that's another topic. I have found Sigma lenses to be quite good if you buy the better Sigma lenses, and they are much cheaper than the Canon/Nikon lenses. I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and love it. I also have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 That is also a great lens. There are a couple good independent web sites that test lenses and put up their technical scores, here are some links:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php
Unless your independently wealthy or a pro, I see no need to spend thousands of $$$$ for Canon or Nikon lenses. I do weddings with my Sigmas and I've never heard anyone complain.

Cameras will come and cameras will go but good glass will serve you well for generations if taken care of. I am of the mind that getting the best and growing into it will be the most satisfying, efficient and cost effective method in the long run.

I understand that many times a person's budget does not allow for a $1400 to $2000 lens but brands like Sigma, Tameron, and others are up and coming and should be looked into. I think Nikkor is shooting itself in the foot with their competition by pricing themselves so high because it will not be long before the only real difference is the bragging rights. I'm going pro so Nikon lenses are the only ones I currently buy ($$ouch$$) but my lenses usefulness will outlast me. I have heard excellent reviews on other brands so I will not downplay them and would not hesitate to recommend that a person look seriously at them. For me if you buy cheap you will learn cheap and upgrading will require you to unlearn a few things and bad habits are hard to break.

My advice for someone not looking to go pro but wants to take excellent pictures is to first decide what you want to take pictures of the most and get a good lens for that purpose. Keep the zoom range narrow, I personally do not like lenses that cover the 18mm - 300mm range but for someone who wants a single good lens for a lifetime of general shooting this may be the lens for you (provided you bite the bullet and get the best one on the market) but I know of no working professionals who routinely use one.

The best general purpose lens out there is the 50mm f/1.4 because the human eye (loosely speaking) is a 50mm lens, there have been very well known pros before the digital age that never used anything else but a 50mm lens.

If you're serious about photography, even as a hobbyist or the family snapshooter who wants to be a cut above, save, save, save and get the best lenses, you will not regret it because they will perform well and hold their resale values far better than a cheap lens.

Ya know, I was just about to ask him to post some of those "tack sharp" shots from that lens. I'd like to see them. One other quick point about equipment - those sites that test lens and show you the graphs and curves - what you want is a side by side actual shot for shot comparison and you can get that at www.luminous-landscape.com in many, not all, instances. I am in no way associated with that site except as a fan and appreciator of the man's efforts. I wouldn't buy a piece of equipment without seeing if he'd tossed it up against its nearest competitors in a "shootout." His methodology is clear, correct, and his results are apparent and believable. "L" glass cost an arm and a leg. Get what you pay for. He tells it like it is. I keep saying this and hope I'm not becoming a nuisance about it but I can't stress it enough.

I guess you're not understanding the challenge. If I put the focusing distance at 3' with an apreture of f22 and ISO 100 and then place my camera 5 inches off of the ground with my lense set at 17mm my depth of field will be from 10 inches to infinity. I will have two subjects, one near the camera lens very near to the ground (if not on the ground) and one in the distant background. I will select the distant background depending on what you choose as the object of interest on the ground near the lens. Don't worry about framing the shot, framing the shot is the challenge I must meet; just send me on a scavenger hunt looking for something of your choosing to use as the subject of interest near the lens and then, if I can find what you ask for then I will proceed to seek the best view I can to frame the shot in an interesting manner; that will most likely mean moving the object from where I find it to another location and setting up the whole shot. I would consider it a fun and interesting challenge.