Jerry, I do not mean to be disputatious, but, I believe you are engaging in oversimplification. The issue is more complex than that. The sensor is only one component of a complete system. How can we measure sensor performance unless we can isolate it from the system?

Sensor quality and performance have increased markedly in just the last few years. I have no firm data, but I strongly suspect that an APS-C sensor of today will likely outperform an FX sensor of only five years ago.

This might not help recover any missing images, BUT - did you format the card in-camera before putting it into service? The only time I ever had trouble with a memory card was when I forgot to format it before using it. It accepted images for awhile, then suddenly quit when I knew I had ample storage space left.

For me, a camera strap is an absolute MUST. I tell all my students to always use a strap, but I get a surprising amount of resistance, - it is inconvenient, it gets in the way, etc.

I never keep the camera directly in front of me unless I am actually taking pictures. When I am hiking or walking, I keep the camera to my left, behind my left arm, thus if I trip or fall, the camera will have some protection from a direct blow. Nothing is perfect.

On the other hand, if you are in a crowded tourist area, where a thief might try to snatch your camera, keep it out in front, where you can control it, but ALWAYS use a strap.

Mogul- I am sorry for this delayed response, but I work long days, Art classes, 9AM-4PM, Mon. through Fri., Photography class, 7-10 PM, Mon. through Fri. I usually spend an additional hour or more with individual students to help them with any difficulties. So, I do not get back to quarters until well after 11PM.

Recognizing that this is a Photography Forum and not an Education Forum, I will try to be brief.

The overall tenor of the OP's post indicates to me, at least, that he does not enjoy a good relationship with his instructor. In the recent past, he has asked several questions which could have readily been answered by any decent instructor.

Like you, I tend to doubt that a full-fledged, tenured, "professor" would be teaching a photography class. It matters not who teaches a class, but the quality of the instruction is paramount.

Three years ago, when my college was trying to develop a worthwhile class in photographic basics, I sat in on classes at other institutions. I was often appalled at the poor quality of instruction being offered. Clearly, it was difficult to find instructors who knew the subject matter and also had the necessary communication skills to impart their knowledge to others. That may be part of the problem our OP is encountering.

I have no problem with the OP studying how to use film, as long as the subject matter was preceded by a good grounding in basic optics and other fundamentals of photography. Too many courses do not provide a sufficient foundation. Also, too many courses tend to emphasize "digital" rather than "photography."

My short, seven-year career at a small, conservative, basically liberal arts college, does not qualify me to engage in a detailed dissertation regarding the status of many of our educational institutions. I understand most of your concerns and share some of your observations. I would be happy to engage you in such a discussion via PM if you so desire, taking into account my heavy work schedule.

I am barred by college policy from mentioning the name of the institution on the Web, so please do not ask.

Have a nice day.

Others here have tried to give you advice, so I will not cover that ground again. But I seriously question the integrity of your instructor in the way he has treated you. If you have questions it is the DUTY of the instructor to help you overcome your difficulties. From what you wrote, it seems the instructor was giving you the "brush-off." If I treated my students in such a rude, cavalier manner, I would lose my job. I you are paying good money for the course, you have a right to expect good instruction.

If you have misconceptions, it is up to the instructor to make a good-faith effort to set you straight.

"Thin" negatives can result from underexposure or from under-development. Under-development may result from not enough development time, or from exhausted or contaminated chemicals. Without examining your negatives, it is impossible to give a reasonable answer.

In any event, I would have a real "heart-to-heart" with that instructor.

Some people seem to enjoy being pains in the glutei maximi.

Troll, Troll, Troll.

I did not see much noise, but will this help you?

CaptainC is correct. Put it on the Web and you have given it to the world, watermark or no watermark, copyright or no copyright.

A few years ago, I discovered that six of my images had been stolen from the Web and were being sold quite profitably by the thief. Since then, I will publish none of my work to the Web.

I thoroughly agree. If I could get $500 a day for a shoot, I would want three camera bodies with lenses - one for the shoot, one as a back-up and one to back-up the back-up.

Why in the world would you want my name and address? What legitimate reason would you have? What would it add to any post I make on UHH? That makes me suspicious.

There is nothing wrong with a pseudonym as long as it is not used for fraudulent purposes. Here in the United States, pseudonyms were in use in colonial times, especially by writers and political activists who wished to protect themselves from retaliation by the British Crown.

As a female, I have a real need to protect my identity from those who might wish to do me physical harm.

For whatever it is worth to you, I am fortunate enough to have access to a wide range of lenses from 15mm to 800mm. I own eight lenses with a range of 18mm to 400mm. Most of my landscape images are made with lenses from 35mm to 100mm.

I freely concede that some spectacular images may be made with wide or ultra-wide lenses. I have no problem with that. But I still wonder why so many people seem to feel that ONLY a wide angle lens can be used for landscapes. Landscapes should be shot with whatever lens suits the image the photographer has in mind.

So, what about two persons in the same household, using the same computer and both registered as UHH members? Is there something wrong with this? Is one of them necessarily an "imposter"?

I am sure there are differences among the various manufacturers, but most sensor packages have an Infrared filter at the top, followed by the anti-aliasing (low-pass) filter, then the Bayer color array, next the micro-lens layer, and finally, the electronic sensor itself.

A UV filter is useless on a digital camera since the electronic sensor is not sensitive to ultra-violet rays. It will, of course, provide a measure of physical protection to the front element of the lens.

"Skylight" filters are relics of the days of film, when they were helpful in slightly darkening blue skies. A Skylight filter will add a slight warming tone to a digital image.

I use a Nikon L1A filter on my lenses. It is roughly the same color as a Skylight filter and serves to protect my lens from mist, sand, etc. I find it much easier - and safer - to clean the flat surface of the filter than the curved and more vulnerable lens surface.

I am just being curious, but I have often wondered why there seems to be such a popular belief that landscape photos should be made using a wide-angle lens. I have read recommendations on this and other forums for using lenses as short as 10 mm.

Is this just some "newbie" fixation, or is there a substantive rationale for the belief?

I shoot many landscapes, from seashore to mountains, wetlands, etc., but I rarely, if ever, use anything on my D700 shorter than 50 mm and frequently at 100 mm or beyond. To me, a wide-angle lens would make it more difficult to define a clear center of interest, would likely turn mountains into molehills and generally increase the difficulty in producing an interesting and compelling image.

Maybe some of the Forum experts can educate me as to why wide-angle lenses are so popular for landscapes.