Yoostabe, Sam's Club had real good photo printers, at least the one here. Never used it so I can't say. My wife thinks our Lexmarks do a whole lot better job than Walgreens. Of course Walgreens is q whole lot cheaper when there's a sale, but she knows she gets what she pays for.

I have the same problems with my eyes. I can not focus my D5000 manually and have the pictures turn out razor sharp. The doctors keep telling me my cataracts aren't that bad... yet.

Does the rangefinder feature help? IIRC the camera will tell you when your manually focused lens is set correctly. Or not.

Way off topic, I apologize. Some were talking about the car, not the shot. Here's a 56 Ford to die for http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=X1Wrq4HyDxs

Remember what Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I got a strap designed for binoculars, goes over my head, around both shoulders. I use it for the D5000. It's very comfortable, even with the 70-300 lens. Zero weight is born by my neck, it's all on the shoulders. I love the thing. I can wear the thing all day, it's great. A friend got one from B&H and loves it too. I got mine on vacation, saw someone else with one for her binoculars and just about yelled WHERE DID YOU GET THAT?!!

Now now, it all depends on how fussy you are. I'm happy with this photo of a laughing falcon taken from a riverboat in Costa Rica, light rain. Nikon D5000, 70-300 lens at 300mm. Let me check the rest of the EXIF data.... ISO 1600 (!), 1/4000, F8. Would I make a poster of this? Not likely. But I'm happy enough with this as opposed to buying, and carrying, a bigger lens.

DSC_0681-2.jpg


DSC_0681.jpg

Now now, it all depends on how fussy you are. I'm happy with this photo of a laughing falcon taken from a riverboat in Costa Rica, light rain. Nikon D5000, 70-300 lens at 300mm. Let me check the rest of the EXIF data.... ISO 1600 (!), 1/4000, F8. Would I make a poster of this? Not likely. But I'm happy enough with this as opposed to buying, and carrying, a bigger lens.

Before you spend $600-$3600 for a big honkin' lens, try cropping and blowing up images from the lenses you have. If the focus is good enough, then the crops and enlargements will be too.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells the origins of words, tells you more than you really care to know.

A couple more websites, I find this guy very helpful.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/flash-photography-concepts/

and his blog
http://neilvn.com/tangents/

The SB900/910 talk to your camera, not sure about the others. I got a $160 Lumopro from Midwest Exchange. it works but I have to set the power and zoom. It also works as a slave.

The ones that come to my yard go after sparrows and house finches and one of the villains took a northern flicker! And they seem to ignore the millions of mourning doves that monopolize the feeders. Geesch.

Just an example:

Cooper's Hawk, my guide book says 14-20". Kestrel has a lot of blue, is very pretty, and smaller than this guy.

Apple's iPhoto has a very good archival process. I have been unable to get it to work with PS/Bridge, to be able to get a photo out of iPhoto, work on it in PS, and put it back into iPhoto's archive. Oh it's possible like anything else, if one is willing to do the manual steps, etc. But I was unable to make them "play nice." That is have iPhoto work like it normally does, only use PS for the editing function. Tried a couple of different things without success.

What finally dawned on me was PS is intended for professionals, iPhoto is for limited "home use." Pros archive their stuff off the computer and could not care less about any iPhoto/PS interface.

Might it be depth of field issues? These tired old eyes see the near part of the critter to be in focus but the far parts not so much. Go up 1 or 2 stops, or back up and us a telephoto?