Thanks to all who have replied so far. On the iPad, there is a built in editing software. So what I did is exactly what you would have done on a computer in PS: Crop, lighten shadows, add a bit of contrast, and sharpen. Again, once I did all that and copied those edited photos onto my computer, they were much much smaller (in resolution). I do not believe you can see “properties” on the iPad to know this is happening. My guess is that since Apple does this thinking you will keep them on a small screen, they don’t worry about image size in MB, but I was not aware at all. I’m glad I had not deleted the originals from my CF card. JimR

Hello Fellow UHHers. I typically save all my day’s photos onto my iPad when I’m away from home. This time, since i was away for a few days, I did some editing on the iPad, which has pretty capable tools on it. However, I noted when I then uploaded these edited photos into my computer, that the file size was much much smaller. Typically my photos are about 7 to 10 mb, but these photos edited on the iPad are less than 1 mb. Does anyone know why this is? Thank you! JimR

I remind myself all the time that we are no longer taking photos. We are creating files. The camera has its own software that creates the file. The program we choose to view with, on our tablet or on our computer, deciphers the file and converts it to an image. But it’s all digital files. I find it interesting to compare the same photo, displayed on my iPad vs on my Dell computer. They are not the same. Now, those who shoot RAW will present a different story, but still even with RAW, there is a processor on each end.

Hello Kathy

I’ve been migrating to the Olympus system. I have been a Canon user for years, full frame size, very big and heavy to carry around. The Olympus system is so compact and light I can carry the camera, with mounted lens, plus an additional lens or two, all in one over the shoulder normal size bag that looks like a fabric briefcase. You might want to check it out. To keep the prices reasonable, everything I’ve gotten so far I bought used at my local camera store, all in top notch condition. Good luck with your research on this. JimR.

I also have had pretty good success with in-camera HDR, but only in certain situations. For example, it will not work if the wind is blowing tree limbs and vegetation, thus moving them. For architectural shots, like a building with areas of bright reflected light, and shadows, it works very well. In another instance, I am copying hundreds of old slides optically, with the built in HDR capability. Some slides I thought I’d be throwing away (even a scanner did not work nor PP) I was able to get quite good images out of them using in-camera HDR. So, not great for everything, but for certain things, very useful. Hope this helps. JimR

I have had the Cokin system for years, since the film days, when I used it more often. Now, however, I consciously bring the system along when I anticipate landscapes with a wide range of light and shadow. The best photos I’ve gotten, as an example, were using a graduated ND grey filter when shooting in the Blue Ridge mountains. I needed to “darken” the sky so that I could get the details of the mountains, shadows, and vegetation. I prefer to get as much as I can using optical methods, rather than just rely on PP later on. Plus which I could sort of see the results right away, on site, and at least know that the images were coming out as I wanted them to. All that said, I have not used any of my other filters from the film days; just the grey graduated ND ones, and perhaps once or twice, a graduated blue ND. Hope this helps. JimR

Hello again, Tom. I’ll buy it from you. I’ll send you a PM. Thanks much. JimR

Hi Tom. I think you and I have had a transaction previously but I’m not sure. Anyway, this looks good. Does it have the front and back lens caps too? Thanks! Jim

Thanks much for showing us the plane that took you up for the photos. I had not been aware of such opportunities. Really great shots you got. Thanks again for sharing. JimR

These are some great photos. Thank you for sharing them. I have the same question as another already posted. How did you get them? From a helicopter? Thanks again. JimR

Reading the comments, this posting brought back quite a few memories for some of us. Thank you all for looking and adding your thoughts. JimR

Dave O, I too left shortly after reversion. Had to get Japanese license plates, but fortunately left before they switched from the right side of the road to the Japanese standard left side of the road. Of interest, the SR-71 in the photo I took in 1971, later crashed while landing at Kadena in 1972. There were strong cross winds as the plane was landing and the ‘chute caught a cross wind and was pushing the airplane off the runway. The pilot quickly detached the landing chute and went full throttle, but on his second try, blew tires and the plane was irreversibly damaged. I was at Kadena from mid 1969 to mid 1973. JimR

Hard to imagine, but this remarkable airplane was flying missions over 50 years ago. Also called the “Blackbird” it was called the “Habu” by the Okinawan people, where it was first deployed in the late 1960s (Habu being a snake). I took these photos in 1971 when I happened to be in the right place at the right time with a camera and long lens. The slides are somewhat degraded, as local developing at that time was not up to the standards of U.S. labs, but it was expensive to send film to the U.S. for processing. Camera was my first internal light meter SLR, the Canon FT-QL. Do not recall the telephoto zoom lens I used - too long ago. I got each shot only one time, and never had the opportunity again. JimR

Great airplane. It’s good to see that a few of them are preserved. I’m attaching two photos taken in early 1971 with my first TTL metering SLR, a Canon FT-QL bought at the Air Force Exchange. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time to catch the one as it was about to land, flying low. JimR

Some good shots. Glad to see the Navy got a few planes into the act. JimR