Graham, since this does not have the high contrast and massive blacks of many of you other pictures, I find this easier on the eyes. I love her good cheer. If she were looking at you, I would have said posed but I feel she is very spontaneous.

The one flaw in the picture and it is a big one for me is that object on the ground behind the bench. I find it ever so distracting. Something tells me that when I wake up in the morning, it will be gone.

Looks overly sharpened to me. Is it?

BigDaddy, why the high pass filter rather than another way of sharpening?

How about mentioning the fact that the Muslims drove out Jews from their homes in Arab countries in greater numbers and after seizing their wealth. At least they had a country willing to take them in rather than letting them rot in camps in Arab counties for generations creating a worse problem for Israelis and Arabs. And bear in mind that the majority of Arab refugees in 1948 had lived there for less than a generation unlike the Jews who had lived in Arab countries for centuries.

Too bad that this does not work. I would caution people against using coffee filters, "white" paper and any other stuff laying around that looks "white". Stick with an Expodisc or color temperature meter.

I think the shot as cropped and printed is very good and you should be proud of it. That being said, let me point out two things. First, the focus appears to be on the elbow, not the head. My experience is that with opportunities like this, you do not have time to think, focus and compose. Get the shot and say your what if's later.

I prefer more separation between subject and background. I would mask him so I could darken the background. Once you do that, you might want to change animal's brightness.

Thanks for printing this pretty picture.

Hi Jim. I gave up bouncing off of walls and ceilings years ago because too much light got lost. And you have the problem of shifting color balances which negate the Expodisc.

I have used various flash modifiers and my modifier-of-the-day is the Lite-Scoop II. I use it for up to about 10' because at greater distances, the spot source of your flash has spread out and you need all the light you can get.

Happy shooting.

Well, here is the old curmudgeon again.

The first thing I do not like is that the horizon is not horizontal.

Second, I am confused as to what the subject is: the waves or the landscape. This addresses the comments about the houses being a distraction. Even if you cloned the houses away, I would still not find the picture very interesting. You might work the levels to create some drama but the picture still will have the problems described in the next point.

Third, I do not like the waves. Like the second point, they are confusing. The shutter was either too slow to freeze the detail or too fast to blur the motion.

I would go back out there and reshoot it until you get something more interesting and less confusing. This is a great object lesson.

Two points. First, I use my Expodisc for all shooting. I set the white balance at the beginning of the shoot and leave it alone unless the lighting changes.

Two, Bugfan is correct about having mixed lighting with flash. I deal with that by setting the camera to manual: 1/200 (maximum synchronization), f/8 (two stops smaller than my maximum aperture), and ISO 100. The flash is on AUTO ETTL. This typically will underexpose the ambient lighting so that the flash is the sole lighting source. I may change the aperture and ISO if necessary. I use the Expodisc at the beginning of the shoot because this takes less time than hunting through the card for another flash test. I might be able to dial in the balance but never thought of that.

Based upon what I have seen on UHH, I believe that the camera brand or model does not matter. My camera happens to be a Canon 60D.

Jim, wise decision. Let me know if you need any help with it. Took me a day or two to get used to it. Biggest problem is switching back to autofocus.

I have been using them for about 4 years and they are extremely reliable in reproducing the original white balance. If you want to reproduce that balance and do not want to fiddle in post-processing, then this is the way to go. Once you have it, you can always adjust it to satisfy your artistic urges.

You can go crazy adjusting white balance. People do not remember the original scene that well in order to adjust it.

I know other posts have covered this but I will have an easier time following your responses if I post again. My apologies for the redundancy.

I need to buy a new tripod and would appreciate all your advice. I will use it for night photography, still lives, flowers and panoramas. Sitting on top of it will be a Canon 60D with the 18-200 kit lens or the much heavier Sigma 70-200. My budget is $100. I will be buying it from B&H which carries Slik, Manfretto, Oben and Vanguard in this price range.

Aside from the usual questions of convenience, quality, stability and the like, I am curious about pan versus ball heads. I have been using pan heads for years so know nothing about ball heads. I am also used to braced center columns. The less expensive tripods brace the columns while none in my price range do. Am I correct to presume that improvements in technology have made that bracing in more expensive units unnecessary?

Thanks for your help.

I think this is a terrific picture. No distracting elements but just enough background to give interest and context. I like the grimy look of the accordionist that matches that of the background. Love his looking down and eyes covered by unkempt hair. Love the way you reworked the dog and accordion. Curious of how this looks in color.

Not only did you learn something surprising about photography here but also how interesting uninteresting things like accordion music can be. Keep up the good work.

Funny coincidence. I had the same problem last night with my 60D. Turned out that the mirror lockup mysteriously got enabled. Disable it at custom function III, item 5.

Hope this helps.

This discussion comes at the best time for me. A Sigma 70-200 just came this week and in some down and dirty tests, I found that at f/2.8 and 200 mm, the lens was useless. At other apertures and focal lengths, it seemed satisfactory but overall, no better than my cheap 18-200 Canon kit lens. Why spend all this money for something no better than what I have already?

Out of frustration, I called Sigma and Paul was very helpful to me regarding this known problem. He suspects that the calibration of the auto-focus link between camera and lens is off. This is just the issue described in the two excellent links above. He told me to do the live view test as described in Jerry's link. This is clearly my problem. Sigma will adjust the auto-focus at no charge for white-market lenses under warranty. To do so, they need the lens and camera.

Paul also said that the proper distance for testing lenses is 400 times the focal length. And that is within the recommended range in the article. In addition to the method in the article, I would add that you use the self-timer, a highly stable floor, and not to extend the center column of the tripod. And take notes of each shot. Do not rely upon memory.