By experience I know that photos I print on my Epson come out a little darker than they look on my monitor. To counteract this, I open the image I want to print in Elements, then give it two brightness "clicks", then print it. I then close the brighter image without saving it to protect the preferred version. I have also found that when printing at home the type of paper may require further adjustments. Satin or semigloss papers may require three "brightness" clicks plus two "contrast" clicks compared to glossy paper. Even the brand of paper (Kodak vs. HP, for example) may require different settings.

Are you sure the look you are trying to achieve is reality? It could be that the camera is recording the image more or less accurately, but not exactly the way you remember it, or wish it had looked. If achieving the "golden hour" look leaves the green grass looking pale, you could try a gradient or layer mask and treat the grass differently from the rest of the image.

Two wildly divergent opinions on this. Interesting. One note: A good photograph never screams "He/she used AUTO. Shame!!" No one will know if you don't tell.

You should be able to have them reprinted free if you wish. I have had several instances where I returned prints for being too dark and they were reprinted for free, and came out fine the second time. It seems that some print services will adjust the print a little unless you tell them in advance not to make any adjustments. Even then they sometimes will do it anyway.

I would use AUTO or semi-suto mode to make sure I had "something in the can" (shows how long I have been doing this) before experimenting with manual. This may be a lifetime event and you would not want to get home with nothing usable. My cameras do a fine job with auto, and I can concentrate on having fun and working of composition, focus and timing instead of settings. Once you have some good photos "in the can" you can begin experimenting with manual.

True, but instead of discouraging people by calling what they have or can afford "junk", posters should be supportive and offer help if they can. If one cannot do this they should just not post. The same goes for people asking for help within a small price range. If someone has a budget of $100, telling them need need a $1,000 lens is no help, and can end a potential lifetime hobby.

I have one from 1968 I bought in Saigon for $2.00, so you got a pretty good deal. These are ambush lenses, not something you can stalk with. Mount it on your camera, and your camera on a tripod and practice on a still target in full sun first. You can probably start wide open (f8), 1/500, iso 400, and go from there. My Pentax has IS in body so I have an advantage, but these things can give good results. I also have "catch in focus", which means I can start way out of focus, hold the shutter release down and slowly return to focus and the camera will trigger as the subject comes back to focus. Don't let negative comments discourage you, with practice you can get results you can share with others.

I have enough trouble with composition, focus and timing to worry too much about exposure, which is primarily an exercise in math anyway. I like to set my lens for maximum sharpness, rarely wide open, but after that I let my cameras take care of the rest of the math. They usually do a pretty good job, but I do monitor ISO and shutter to make sure things don't get too crazy. ISO less than 400, shutter 125 or higher and I am free to concentrate on what my cameras don't do well. Maybe when I master composition, focus and timing will I second guess the camera on exposure.

A lot depends on where you are walking about. In an urban setting (NYC) a shorter zoom or prime might be a good choice. In Yellowstone, something longer, up to 300mm, would be better. I was finally able to narrow my options to two lenses, and 18-135 around town, but an 18-250 for country. Even then, the 250 is often too short for wildlife, human or otherwise.

I believe the market for advanced cameras is only returning to a more natural level after a decade old boom. Until the turn of the century (2000) not many people were carrying SLR's and multiple lens. Film cameras were a lot of trouble and processing and printing difficult and expensive. Advanced photography in the film era was not something most people were interested in, or could afford. Along came digital photography and suddenly advanced photography became easier and more affordable, boosting the sale of SLR's. People who had previously shown little interest and photography were suddenly carrying SLR's. The bloom is off, however.

If you have a budget, or have other things you would like to buy, try Photoshop Elements. With Elements you get an organizer if you want to use one, (I know a number of people using a simple folder system), a RAW processor and a JPEG editor for a one time fixed price (I paid $39.95 from the big A). You probably will not need to re-up every year so the savings can add up. Elements has a number of hobby oriented features not often available in professionally oriented full Photoshop, lots of automation for beginners, guided edits and of expert levels.

If I was starting from scratch with lenses, flash and other gear I would avoid Pentax. Now that I have a good selection as soon as I confirm Pentax is going away the fist thing I will do is buy a new body while I can.

Most cameras are sharpest closed down a little. If you want to use "A" try f4 or f5.6. I have found Ia a good choice when carrying the camera because it will automatically select a scene mode that will produce decent results. In poor light, for example, the camera will automatically stack exposures, and hand held night shots are very good. I have problems getting the camera to focus on an exact spot in Ia, (eyes, for example), so I often use "P" with center spot focus. I seem to get little exposure benefit from RAW, but I can turn noise reduction way down to preserve detail, then apply spot reduction to the JPEG result later. With my DSLR I can crop quite a bit and still get good photos, but not so much with this camera, so I make a point to crop in camera (by zoom or by foot) to reduce PP cropping.

I have a ZS50 and found that it is difficult to get precise focus unless I used the center point method. Ia is fine for landscapes but nothing with a specific point of interest was easy without spot focus. The camera is also difficult to hold steady, even with IS in use. PP cropping is limited because of the small sensor, so I have to crop "in-camera". When I do use full auto the camera will suggest advanced solutions to photographic issues, and use exposure stacking automatically, for example. Hand-held night shots are beautiful. RAW helps with very aggressive noise control. A small sensor camera will never compete with a DSLR for image quiality. Forget it. Never happen. But for it's intended purpose I really like my ZS50. It goes with me everywhere, even when I carry my DSLR. There have been times when I had the DSLR over my shoulder, but went for the ZS50 for convenience.

I have two groups. Group one includes photos of sentimental value, and I never delete any thing from this group regardless of the artistic merit. Photos of my wife and I, our horses that we have loved, dogs, cats, family, friends and travel photos are included. The second group includes my collection of photos with "artsy" merit. Landscapes, birds, lizards, toads, flowers, trees etc. I am ruthless when it comes to mucking out this group. Initially, only one in ten survive one day after download. After all, how many photos of toads do I really need? After a lifetime of photography I have only 100 photos in this group good enough to go on my large digital frame (our walls have long since been covered with prints). Only the best make it this far, and for each one I add I take one away. A photo that is bad the day I download it is still bad a week later.