Gary clearly lived life doing what he loved.
He was an inspiration for many.
Snorkeling and photographing in the Great Barrier reef has been on my bucket list for decades - I can only hope that it's something I will be able do when I'm 72.

Gary was a highly skilled and environmentally dedicated photographer.
May he rest in peace!
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/03/gary_braasch_renowned_photogra.html

In that case you are using different size (dimensions), quality, pixel density or other settings than you used the first time.
So, how do you tell? Open the version you saved last year and check the summary of settings and attributes.
That should give you a hint as to what you changed last time that was not changed this time.

I suspect they would also agree with you.
I could not have said it better!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

For one of many good summaries of how to take photos of Birds In Flight (BIF) here on UHH, see the following UHH post:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-88184-1.html

Lots of very good advice and information!

Not enough info to ID the exact problem you are experiencing.
However, fear not, LightRoom WILL NOT modify or alter the original image file, be it a JPEG or RAW file.

You said your original JPEG file was smaller in size (not the RAW file).
I suspect that another program modified the file or another editor was used to open that image.
Some image viewers will modify JPEG file sizes, especially if your rotate them fro better viewing on screen.

Open Windows Explorer and view the date/time on the file compared to other images taken at the same date/time.
If inconsistent, that tells you some other program opened and then saved the file, reducing the file size in the process.
I think you will discover that LightRoom is innocent.

I assume you mean the Induro GHBA sidekick? It's a good combo with the RRS B55.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655338-REG/Induro_485_000_GHBA_Gimbal_Head.html

It is rare that the brass threads in B&W's quality filters bind.
However, when they do it is usually caused by an inadvertent impact or bump, or dust, grit or corrosion (often from sweat or shooting near salt water).

I find that a small drop of fine machine oil (sewing machine oil or light gun oil) applied on the thread interface usually helps.
1) Remove the lens from the camera.
2) Apply one or two tiny drops (I like to use a small syringe for this).
3) Turn the filter around several times to work in the oil.
4) Wipe any residual oil off using a alcohol lens cleaner wipe or similar.

DO NOT use penetrating oils or WD40.

Was that back when you owned a $39 Yashica 35mm SLR? :XD: :roll:
You made me laugh out loud! Thanks!

I agree. :thumbup:
Unfortunately, he may yet rue his decisions and be forced to pay those who claim to be "victims."
Sadly, it's the world we live in today.

Yes, I've viewed many of Arne Svenson's images from several websites.

Being innocuous to you does not necessarily translate to no feeling of privacy invasion to the person photographed. Once the basis for an identification of the person is established, then the question about what other photos were taken but not sold arises. It can quickly become a can of worms and lawyers love to settle when there is ambiguity and risks in court.

Paparazzi photographers get sued constantly (or rather the publication that makes their images public do, as they have the money). Settlements are common, and the more controversial and salacious the image, the more the publication can afford to pay a settlement as periodical circulation benefits.

Legal, illegal, is all about what can be negotiated and what a judge will decide constitutes "a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Being on the 14th floor in your dimly lit bedroom, you should not feel like someone is capturing your every movement in an attempt to make money. You ARE NOT IN PUBLIC, and that is the the "Peeping Tom" aspect of the law that was designed to protect such privacy abuses.

It is a slippery legal slope and the lawyers always win (get paid) one way or the other. There is often little common sense logic in legal.

Here are some pointers when starting out. All camera settings, not shooting techniques.

1) Use AI mode in auto focus.
2) Use one or 4 focus points in the center of the viewfinder. Turn the rest off.
3) Shoot in continuous mode, using short bursts.
4) Leave that teleconverter at home for now. (Besides, it will not work with AF on that lens/camera combination)
5) Turn IS (image stabilization) off. When continuous shooting using a long lens, IS will only slow the AF acquisition rate down.
6) Bump up the ISO to 1600 or higher.
7) Shoot at f/8.0 versus the fastest f-stop for your lens.
8) Shoot in Aperture Priority mode.
9) Shoot at 1/1000 second for most birds, but if they are fast and close, bump that up to 1/2000 or 1/4000th of a second. You may also need to bump up ISO as well depending on lighting.
It is always a balanced judicious compromise between ISO and shutter speed for quality images.

There are reasons for each of these nine suggestions and NOT EVERYONE WILL AGREE with each of them.
But you asked for a starting point, and this one will give you the best chance to get some decent shots quickly.

I look forward to seeing some of your early efforts posted here on UHH.

By Christmas time, you will be ready for that Gimbal and a quick disconnect plate. It will help with some shots, will reduce lens holding fatigue, and help track most birds more easily. By then you will know so much more about what you want and need. Gimbals are handy, but are probably used less than 40% of the time when I'm shooting BIF. But I'd never leave for a BIF opportunity without one!

I think Arne Svenson crossed the line. He could have gotten model releases for those he decided to sell for thousands of dollars each.
Just prudent business sense should have driven that decision.

For those who think that just because you can reach it with a telephoto lens, it is fair game, you are venturing into litigious waters.
While Legal and Logic both start with the letter "L" and each have five letters, they rarely have anything else in common.

Also, remember that these photos were taken from over 100 feet away, and several stories up.

Probably fewer than read the subject article.
http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_29596371/did-arne-svenson-go-too-far-mca-denver

My day was going along just fine until you brought age into the equation! :XD:

For the best quality for the buck, with the emphasis on quality,
I favor the B+W XS-Pro Kaesemann High Transmission Circular Polarizer MRC-Nano Filters.
High light transmission (faster f-stops), brass threads (reduce galling), thin profile (for wide angle lenses) and scratch resistant nano coatings.
They work and really hold up!