Jim Bob,
Unfortunately you are asking for something that can't accurately be done on this website.

When I open and process a raw file I then save it as a tiff. With a limit of just 10mb on downloaded files there is no way to post those tiffs on the website. The result is that both the raw and jpeg file have to be posted on this site as jpegs, meaning it won't be a true test.

I would however like to dispel one incorrect piece of information that was stated in later posts on your thread. I am a sports photographer. I shoot in raw + jpeg fine as do about half of the sports photographers that I know.

The reason we shoot both is because sometimes we don't have enough time to process raw files and other times we have to underexpose in order to get our shot and can only salvage it for newsprint with the raw file.

Still in the interest of this post I will put a jpeg image and a jpeg of a raw image on the site. We were just on vacation and visited Ano Nuevo State Park near Santa Cruz California. The photo is a weener elephant seal. The more colorful variation started as a raw file.

(Download)


(Download)

this won't stand up to scrutiny very well because I am on vacation and don't have a mouse with me.

What I did is make a duplicate layer and set it to multiply. That darkened the background. Then I made a layer mask and masked off the people so that they weren't in the second layer.

Then I copied the first layer again on top of the multiply layer and set that layer to screen. I masked that layer off again so that only the people that were in shadow were still in that layer.

I think you would do better on a whale watching cruise.

There are whale watching boats that leave from Monterrey and Sausalito. There is also a boat leaving from San Francisco that goes to the Fallaron Islands that is likely to see whale. All three would be better for what you are asking about than Point Reyes. With that said, Point Reyes has good scenery, elephant seals and elk, so even if you didn't see whale it is still great photographically. We will be there this Friday.

Steve R you may be right. I wasn't at the location in question and don't know if it would have been reasonable for the photographer to improve his composition significantly or not.
What you are saying makes the point that I was trying to make.
Photography is subjective. We all like whatever we like and we make those decisions for different reasons. I just think that we need to get a little bit thicker skin and be willing to listen to alternative ideas about composition and shooting in general. If the only feedback we get is positive it may feel great, but it will do nothing to make us better photographers.
On the other hand if we freely exchange ideas all of us can learn and profit from it.
If it was me, the tree might have ended up on one side or it might have ended up in the middle. I don't know, I wasn't there. This might have been the best possible photo under the circumstances. All I know for sure is that if it was possible I would have tried to move so that the fence post on the left was closer to the camera and I would have tried to use the posts and the tree together to try to make the photo flow better.
I also would have tried as many different angles and different positions to shoot from as possible before the light changed. And the photographer may have done that.
I just think that bashing someone for sharing their opinion whether we agree with the opinion or not is counterproductive.

Bring both. I had my camera strap break today and my 18-200 broke when the camera hit the sidewalk. Because I brought other lenses on my trip I can still shoot. If I had only one I would be out of luck the remainder of our vacation.

Those of you that are bashing the first critique are not being fair. Photography like other art is subjective.
Those of you that like the photo as submitted, that's great. However, there is no harm in suggesting differing opinions. The photo clearly doesn't follow established compositional rules.
Sure you can break rules if you want, but that doesn't make the rules any less valid.
The rule of thirds isn't the only possible rule that could have improved the photo. The crop that shifts the tree to the left is compositionaly better, but the fence posts are still poorly placed. Moving so that the first post was closer to the camera and the posts did a better job of leading the viewer into the scene would have made a stronger image as would moving the tree out of the exact center both might have improved the photo.
Yes the critique could have been kinder, but at least it was a critique. All the rest of you have done is say that the critique was too harsh and the photo is beautiful the way it is.
The photo might be beautiful, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved or that other photographers with the same scene wouldn't handle it differently.
Tell the photographer that you like the photo, but since it is intended to be a critique and a learning experience give a critique, don't just drool over the outstanding light in the photo and bash someone who gave an honest opinion. That won't help make anyone a better photographer, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Try sunrise from the top of Larch Mountain. Minimal walk and great views. The Columbia Gorge is especially nice if you walk. Wade up Oneonta Gorge to the falls. Take the loop hike from there up to Ponytail Falls and Triple Falls.

Silver Falls State Park near Silverton also has beautiful waterfalls.

With the lack of snow this year Mount Hood is going to be accessible from Cooper Spur or Timberline Lodge.

Also if you go out to the east end of the Columbia Gorge there are a lot of wild flowers on the old highway near Mosier. If you go to The Dalles and then go south most of the side roads have old barns, farm houses etc... some of them with beautiful scenery in the backgrounds.

Going west from Portland its just over an hour to the north coast which opens up a whole new set of photo opportunities.

Portland itself has a number of parks, fountains, some interesting buildings, the waterfront photographs well from the east side near sunset and of course the zoo. Not the worlds best zoo, but has some pretty good photo opportunities.

I agree with MarkD the Sigma is a better lens

In California Bodie and Mono Lake on the east side of Yosemite, if you can get to them. Also I would go to Zion before I would go to Bryce Canyon. Bryce Canyon is spectacular, but Zion has greater opportunity for original photos and creativity. One day in Bryce Canyon pretty well lets you see it. You could spend weeks in Zion and never see the whole place. It is my favorite National Park. There are spectacular peeks and valleys. Beautiful slot canyons. Lots of wildlife and great hiking.

I would go to monument valley, paige, the north rim of the Grand Canyon and spend skip most of Arizona spending extra time in Utah. More national parks, more slot canyons, and pretty direct route to valley of fire. Also that would get you to Zion before you would have to take the shuttle bus which would greatly improve your photo flexibility.
Then if you believe that you have covered utah enough you could go back through Arizona going the other way. If not you could hit utah again on the way home.

Also you are early enough in the year that you should try to hit Death Valley and if possible since you are going to Yosemite I would try to get to Bodie and Mono Lake.

if it was me I would buy a used nikon 80-200 2.8 and the 150-600 sigma sport. That would give you most of the best of both worlds for less money than the 100-300 2.8 and you wouldn't need a teleconverter.

I know that some of you will find this nitpicking, but that's not a buffalo, that's an American bison.

I had that lens. Had to send it to the shop for repairs twice. When it came back the second time I sold it for the cost of the repairs and bought a Nikon 24-70 2.8. I guarantee that it is worth the extra money.

The Tamron is lighter. It is reasonably sharp, but it isn't nearly as durable. If you are hard on your equipment at all then its not the lens for you.

Interestingly enough the person I sold the lens to loves it and has had no further problem. However, he shoots dozens of photos a week versus thousands and sits in the stands instead of being on the sidelines where he might get hit by a middle linebacker, which by the way is at least as hard on equipment as on the photographer.

Good lens if you are careful and don't take too many photos. Not much good if its going to be a real workhorse that's going to get knocked around.

In my mind this is the wrong question and most of the answers aren't really very helpful.

As a sports photographer I hand hold that lens all the time. Just finished the state wrestling tournament. Two days 10 plus hours a day. No place to put a monopod or tripod. Required to sit on your butt or lay down the entire time you are shooting.

But that isn't the real issue behind this question. If the weight is a problem there are only three possible solutions and all of them have possible pitfalls.

You can go to a 3/4 system. As was previously stated they are much lighter. You will give up a little on what your equipment can do but save a lot of weight.

You can try to improve your strength, stamina and technique, but as was pointed out previously a small photographer even with a brace may ultimately hurt themselves.

Or you can use a tripod or monopod. In some situations that will help, but that two has problems. For example when hiking now I have the weight of the camera, lens and tripod. So that isn't going to fix the weight problem. You are just adding more weight.

You should get the equipment that is right for the kind of photography that you do. You should learn to use it to the best of your ability and you must be willing to accept some tradeoffs. Speed versus weight, etc... None of us can really help you with what will ultimately work best for you.

All the possible solutions just cause different problems. Pick your poison and then have fun shooting.

If it was me I would spend the extra money to get the 24-70. Best lens I've ever owned. Use it virtually every day. It's my go to lens for work.

It's worth the extra money especially since you already have a D3. I'm still using D300s because the lenses are a lot more important than the body. The lens isn't especially heavy, and it balances well on the camera.

The 28-70 is a good lens. It just doesn't have quite the zoom range and doesn't focus quite as fast.