Working with this technique is time consuming. You must have a purpose in mind for the project to devote the time. In your case, it is for learning purposes, and it has been successful. After this you want a purpose in the photo itself. Your work on Sara is good, yet the background was not intrusive enough to warrant the time expense on another.
The wings occupy too much of the image, so it's hard to notice the background being color or B&W. Secondborn is nice and has meaning to the family, but as a photo itself, the colors are too pastel and mild to really attract attention to the photo. But, the "Orange crayon" is different. It is a strong color, draws attention quickly, portends to a story, and has already gathered the attention of another here. It immediately becomes something other than a picture of a little girl with a crayon and becomes a picture of a crayon held by a little girl. This is some of what good photos do. They control the thought and feeling of the viewer and the better photographer is the one who can incite the greatest emotion.

Nikonian72 did a good job with the definitions located at the link that has been repeated a few tiimes here.

I have one technical point that may confuse a few. Pixels are the dots that make up the image. Each is a single color. The 'depth' is normally 8 bit or better 14 bit and tells us how many different colors that pixel can display.

Sensors in cameras generate images with some particular number of pixels (10meg, 16 meg, etc.). Each of these pixels come from four sensor elements. This is where raw comes from. JPG images let the camera take these four elements and output a singel pixel. Raw sends the four elements of data to the computer and lets you decide how to combine these four elements into a single pixel. These sensors are arranged in a mosaic pattern on the sensor, so when you see the phrase de-mosaicing, you can know that this refers to the process of changing the raw data from this complicated pattern to a less complicated set of pixels in an image.

Just to prevent confusion in some who may know some of this, I did want you to know that the sensors elements in the camera are not referred to as pixels. Pixels are only the result of what the software (in camera or in the computer) does with the sensor data.

Larry, try RECUVA

It is a free program that I have used to recover photos from several of my friends' cards.

Luckily, I have not had to do this for my own.

As an explanation so you will understand the situation....

When you 'delete' from the computer, it only removes information that tells the computer where to find the picture on the card. It does not erase the picture files themselves. The computer checks the file data area and finds nothing since that data is gone. The WII just looks for picture files on the card. It finds them (since these are not erased by deleting) and then plays them. Reformating the card will delete the picture files themselves. As cautioned earlier, don't format while on the computer. That format structure can and is often different than the format that the camera can use. If you do this and the camera can't read or use the card, then format on the camera and restore the card for use. (some cameras can't reformat a computer formatted card so the card becomes and additional memory card for the computer only)

I have a 18-135 that came with the D80 that I bought a few years ago. I have it now in the bag with the D7000. I find it to be a great all around lens. I do change to a 200-500 when birding or at the ball park since 135 is a little short, but for your circumstance, it will work!

I find the 14-24 Nikon f/2.8 to be very good for group shots in cramped quarters. Have the group assemble in an arc instead of a straight line, use light room to correct for that lense aberation (this lens does a lot on its own), and you end up with a great shot of sports teams, family reunions and wedding parties.

If you get too close to people, it will create an unacceptable perspective with close body parts (noses, hands, arms) appearing much too large for the rest of the body. [Ahem, guys get your mind back on photography]

Your tree is sharper than the couple.

You will find that the camera's low light capability is not enough to make up for this lens' ability when it comes to low light situations. You would have to be extraordinairly good at holding the camera still and the scene would have to be without motion. Shutter speeds of 1/4 second or so will result in unsatisfactory results in most cases. Normal daytime use outdoors are great, well lit indoors are acceptable, but sports arenas are action shots and won't be quite what you expect. Get the lens, but also get a 50mm 1.8 and use it in low light with cropping to get your subject into the frame.

Also, a side veiw is still the best with the Mallard. You will see the crest, but also the tail has feathers that curl up and forward. A side view brings this out as well. These are among the more colorful of the ducks. In humans, it is the female with the beauty, but the birdbrains got it backward and polished up the male.

The Mallard duck that you shot is a male. Male birds almost always have the greatest color variations and vibrance as compared the the female of the species.

Having the light primarily from the rear hinders the display of his colors that can seem almost irridescent in direct sun. Get him to turn slightly to his left and shoot with the sun behind you and take a slighly larger frame so that you can crop down to the view that you want. You will get a better view of the crest on top of the head as well.

Just ask him to move, hopefully he will cooperate, otherwise you will have to be very patient and wait on him.

The duck that alaskan posted is the female Mallard.

My 'take' on this, after having worked with many 'newbies' around here:

To a new participant in photography, the manual is almost useless. However, read it anyway! Note: it is not a tutorial on photography!

Newcomers may learn from the manual that a button controls some function, but may have no idea why they should know that or why use that or what it does for the image.


Read a book on photography basics, then go back to the manual to see how to make your camera do what the 'basics' book suggested you try. The manual tells you how to use the functions....the photography books tells you what the functions do or achieve in a photograph.

When you are 'in the dark' about photography, both books will have you wondering 'what have I gotten myself into now'. You must master both books before either one alone makes sense.

sunrisepano is correct...you will have to get closer to your subject with the size lens that you currently own. It takes patience, time and patience, time and .... Well, you get the idea. Many award winning photos of wildlife are because the photographer spend weeks planning, waiting and much shooting to get there.

I have plans myself for a particular shot that I will share when it's done. I have been looking for the correct location for this setup for two months now. When I find it, I expect it will take a month to get the correct light and subject position to complete this 'dream shot'. And all that is 'if' I can get it to all come together. Also spend over a thousand for a lens to get the right 'stuff' for the shot. The lens will be useful for many other things, but my determination for specifications came from the needs for this one shot.

You used the word 'recycling' in the thread title. I think that is probably the only thing that you can do. Make the 'green earth' people happy and drop them into the plastics bin at the closest recycling plant.

This thing is designed to a dedicated task; this task is not current and it does not lend itself to alteration for other tasks. Therefore......

Through PM with woodworker236, I found out that his conversation with the manufacturer resulted in a discovery of problem with the camera that has now been corrected and his images on automatic settings are now fine.

Christine was a different movie. Christine was a red Plymouth. The movie I am thinking of was called "The Car". It was a sinister looking black Lincoln that was highly customized to make it look meaner. The movie came out in 1977 and used a 1971 Lincon as the base for the customized car. The base car was the same type as the one John Kennedy was killed in, except this one was not convertable and was modified as a two door coup.