Nice photos! They look like HDR photos, which may have issues with motion in the scene because they take 3 or more exposures while the scene changes. I guess this could be responsible for the water effect, which looks similar to what happens when you use a slow shutter speed on moving water? Did you use multiple exposures with the waves in different positions? I did notice on one of my HDR's the moving clouds produced like after images which I think is called a ghosting effect or double image (and yet the moving water in the harbor in the same photo had very sharply focused ripples)), but with water moving fast enough so the each frame shows some of the "smoke" or blurring effect, which is then combined by Photomatix or whatever HDR software you use? I am confused too by what I just said, but I think you may understand what I am getting at. Unless it was all done from a single shot in the first place and not multiple exposures.

Yes, I would think any serious photographer would go the route of doing your own framing. Solution 1: buy a quantity of pre-cut mats. I get mine from Clearbags at about $3 a mat give or take...It fits my 11x17paper sized prints with a 10.5x15.75 mat opening, into a 16x20 frame...using a "ready made" frame size (16x20, 18x24, etc. is way cheaper than having a framer order a 17.5x 21.75 'custom' frame, which they love to do). Framers hate the ready made sizes, as they can at least double their profit with the custom frame. Of course if money is no object custom is visually better usually but not necessary really. Solution #2, buy your own mat cutter, can be over the $100 range (a Logan brand) for something half decent. Eventually I got a $600 professional C&H brand, and never regretted it. I can custom cut any mat or double mat beveled opening perfectly and fit the outside for the closest ready made mat size. I have never used custom frames in my life. Solution #3 did not work for me. I did try to cut my own frames by buying moulding and a miter box, but found I was way out of my league there, you have to be a good woodworker and ready to spend many many hours doing woodwork instead of photography. I found a local framemaker that will sell a quantity of a particular size wood frame at wholesale prices, buying single frames from a commercial framer place can put you in the poorhouse or make your finished piece so expensive it won't sell easily. The local place (Furst Bros in Baltimore, MD) will sell me a single frame, they are the ones who supply the framers. Graphic Dimensions is one of many online companies that will deliver frames to you. I also like buying a quantity of metal frames online, you merely use corner inserts with screws to make a sturdy but economical frame with mat and glass and backing to protect your work and hang it in a gallery. to

I have a Tokina 11-16. Use on a Nikon D5200. No cons that I can see.I haven't used it a whole lot, some stunning landscape shots, the usual perspective distortion is pronounced of course as a result of the wide angle, vertical lines in structures "lean" from either side. That has become an aesthetic in itself nowdays, like Bokeh.
Took a shot on a shoreline and that distortion disappeared, got some unusual shots of forms of objects like rocks and wood in the foreground at my feet and the whole background range up to the sky that are normally impossible.

Just remember not to change the titles once they have been imported into the catalogue, right? Or the data file won't match digital negative file and they won't be able to be found right?

The problem is what is "importing"? I read in the tutorial that importing doesn't move the photos just creates a data catalogue of where photographs are. It cited the case of the photographer who mistakenly believed all his original digital negative files had actually been moved and erased them, only to lose his entire photo collection. The lesson was that the photo remains wherever it was originally and a "data" file with a special extension (.ircat or irdata) is created in the Light room catalogue. On the other hand, whenever a new photo is saved onto your computer, lightroom will attempt to put it in its catalogue, which by default is the "Pictures" folder in Windows 7 for example. I know my hard drive is almost filled up right now but changing the destination to an external drive is quite esoteric. So far I have not reached an understanding of this in order to be able to use Lightroom at all. I have tried to open photos in Lightroom for PP but did not get far, I think first it has to be entered somewhere in Lightrooms "catalogue" (whatever that is, real photos or virtual data?) Confused? Or can someone set me straight?

Yes, a main issue would be the low light capabilities. I would love to see some samples from both to see when the noise starts to creep in. Yes, I too rarely shoot beyond 6400 because of too much noise. BUT low light subjects are among my favorites, sunsets, those magical twilight hours, night photography, are driving me nuts, when I switched from film I thought "Now I can finally take low light pictures with perfection, since it is electronic instead of chemical" What a rude awakening I had. No difference at all much. I remember buying some 800 film to take pictures indoors at the museum without a flash and they were noisy as hell. If the new Nikon has made significant progress in this area, that would even surpass a full frame camera for instance, it would be well worth the price and 'jumping ship'. "High ISO does not a noiseless picture make, (necessarily)"

I would qualify the ability to crop with the megapixel count. I would guess you have a high megapixel count to be able to crop like that with no pixelation. The higher the megapixel number the greater the ability to crop and retain fine detail. Of course the other half of the equation is the lens. A great lens with not many megapixels in the camera could lead to unsharp images, as would plenty of megapixels but an inferior lens. But a lot of megapixels with a sharp lens is magnificent.

Could it be on the mirror? If not lens and not sensor...it must be somewhere else? At that size it should be visible to the naked eye or at least with a magnifying glass...have you been able to actually see the suspect area with the naked eye? As soon as you take off the lens, you see a flat shiny surface...where stuff collects. But I think I have heard this is not the sensor itself.

Yes! Nothing beats more megapixels! At least 36mp should be next. I have been taking photos since I was a kid out in the desert with my fathers Pentax using up a roll of film on a sunset and he sayin "&%^#! You used up all the film!" I studied photography at MICA. My 24 megapixel Nikon is a dream come true at the end of my life long quest for a sharp photo and I can crop to my hearts delight and still have fantastic detail. Sure, continous speed is good for the commercial photographers and low light is a good concern but it is not worth giving up for. Of course this is a commercial product and we all make artistic sacrifices to make a buck. I still haven't gotten to the end of the rainbow where there is infinite detail and no noise in a low light shot - a perfect picture by moonlight is my hearts desire! When oh Lord, when? The good news is I don't have to get jealous for a while longer yet. I have 24! I win! And I can't afford a new one anytime soon.

I had a pc and a mac, and had to admit the Mac had better graphics.
But I couldn't afford to keep two upgraded, and unfortunately developed a sweet tooth for video games, and Mac just wasn't even in the ballpark. I never looked back, but it did have a processor in Iphoto called Caffeine that had I a graphic equalizer for visual tones that I have never seen duplicated, and it had a pleasing effect on color I hadn't seen since. I still go back to my year 2000 Mac to process a picture. But I wouldn't have thought I had really lived without playing The Elder Scrolls! Like being in a photograph and controlling your own movie, complete with magic, swords, armor, and dragons like you wouldn't believe. I know I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one!

I am sure every photographer has a bunch of Jpegs in the library wishing they were raw. I have often thought the options on the Raw processor give a finesse not possible with normal photoshop. For instance I also have a lot of tiffs in my digital library I would like to use the Raw processor on to make improvements not quite possible in normal pp.

I have used the new Epson Artisan 1430 dye printer, the newer inks are very good for lightfastness (nonfading). I have been selling prints displayed in a gallery window and on gallery walls with a big picture window and have not been able to detect any fading whatsoever. This has been the case for Epson inks even on the older Stylus Photo 1280. On my first Epson 1200 there was noticeable fading. This comes from personal experience of having framed prints with regular glass hanging for periods of months, over periods of years. Epson claims like 75 yrs. The artists in the gallery claim their paintings fade, especially watercolors, from window exposure, so the photographs hold up better than that as far as I can tell. (Old oil paintings with varnish tend to yellow and blacken over decades and centuries, it is extremely difficult to restore them, only by removing the varnish without removing any paint, very difficult, and it is done by hand) A digital photograph I have just realized, can be saved indefinitely as a file because is a "code" not an image, and can always be reprinted exactly as the original. In theory any way. It would be hard to find the original printer model after some years, but you get my point.

What trick is that, by the way?

Orientals used to wear glasses with plain glass or without lenses to look more intelligent. I was under the impression it was to offset Western bias. Maybe they still do.

Another option is to use small "spot" lights instead of the big square light source when photographing people with glasses. The reflection will be a small circular spot of white which can be easily cloned out or you can use the healing brush etc.