I just joined this site a few days ago hoping to learn from and enjoy the banter of its members.
The vitriol in these last few pages has made me realize that UHH is much like other sites that I have quit.
I am now quitting this site.
Go ahead. Satisfy your egos. Destroy what might be so very good.
There is no need to reply as I am gone.

"Or it could be in the road and total out a car or possibly kill one or more people in that car..its a matter of perspective."

One may see far, far more pedestrians than deer standing or walking in the road.
Should they be shot? The laws of perspective apply to them as well.

I find that with digital there is a great deal of detail recorded in the dark areas that is not apparent until they are lightened.
Whereas when the detail is lost in the light areas it is gone forever.
I set my camera to underexpose one to two stops to preserve the highlights. The darks are still very useable.

If he had used a camera instead of a gun that deer might still be alive for others to enjoy and photograph.

Let's face it a camera does not think. It must follow a set of rules and regulations designed to give the best picture possible under many varied conditions. I think it averages out all possibilities. Usually a good thing.

Most of my pictures are taken in fully automatic mode.
But there are circumstances when I might disagree with my camera as to what is the best picture. At that time I will switch to semi automatic. That is I choose the aperture or shutter speed. Or I may go to fully manual where I choose everything despite the sage advice of my camera. Chances are I will use both manual and auto by taking more than one picture and then decide who was more clever me or K-5.

There is one kind of shooting in which I always use manual focus. If there are objects between me and my subject that the camera might focus on instead of my choice I overrule the camera. I am still the boss.

I have been taking pictures for over 60 years and I am constantly awed by the wisdom shown by my brainless Pentax K-5.

After all the raves about LensPen here I decided to get mine out and give it another try - on my glasses not on a lens.
Hang on.....

Sorry. It gets a failing grade.
Looking at the lens it appears to have done a good job.
Looking through the lens - smears.
Hang on again.....

I just took one of those dangerous items that we are told never ever to use - a dreaded Kleenex.
I breathed on the lens. One gentle wipe and it is immaculate. No scratches. No lint.

I never use lens cleaning fluid or lens tissues.

You have just witnessed a purely objective scientific test.

Disregard Manufacturer's hyperbole. Try it yourself.

I used Canon cameras for over 30 years. The FTb for 10 years and the T-90 for 20 years.

I was never thrilled with Canon Canada's service department, neither the quality of service nor the prices.

I wound up using an American company.

Fortunately in 30 years I only required service three times.

It has been a long time but this is the company I used in 2002.
MORGANTOWN CAMERA AND VIDEO REPAIR
99 Holland Ave.,
Westover, West Virginia, 26501
800-564-9284 and 304-291-3522
www.mcvr.com

Their warranty was for 6 months.
The T-90 was subjected to heavy use until I went digital in 2006.
It still works perfectly.
Their prices were reasonable and their service excellent.

glojo,

That is a very good picture of a vicious, unpredictable animal.
I think I would have backed off before it came that close.

Don't worry so much about pleasing others unless you are a pro.
Please yourself. You set your own standards and do your best to meet them.
If another person compliments you you can pat yourself on the back and feel good.

It just keeps getting better and better.

How about metering off an 18% grey card placed in the same light as the object being photographed.
Or the equivalent of 18% grey - a blue sky 90% from the sun,
a worn (not new) asphalt road, a lush green lawn.

Splendid photo.

I think the catchlight in the eye is a most important element for giving life to the picture and more apparent sharpness than there may actually be.

I am 79. I feel that I have passed the cusp and have, photographically, entered a new curve in which much is well beyond my ken. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to absorb it all. It doesn't matter.

I never much cared for the tedious hours of darkroom work - the old curve. That anachronism still resides in my basement unused for these past 6 years.
But I thoroughly enjoy my new curve undark darkroom, Photoshop Elements 4, and spend hours playing in it.

I can now do things in PS4 that I could never even have dreamed of doing with chemicals and I can do it better and in minutes instead of hours. No sore back. No tired feet. No chemical stains or odours. A mere touch of my finger and I can perform miracles as you have done.

I would not have missed the old, in which I learned so much, for anything. Thanks to that experience I can now derive immense pleasure and satisfaction from having passed the cusp into the new curve.

I am very lucky and do appreciate my digital good fortune.

Mickey

nikonshooter,

It is working.

I like it but still prefer the original.

I am not a trained artist but I paint in oils. I find the computer version's brush strokes are too regular. But I admit it does make a pleasing picture particularly when cropped so that the eagle dominates.

Mickey

nikonshooter,

I like the first version better than the 'painted' one.

Whatever you did you produced an exceptional photograph.

[quote=rpavich][quote=Mickey Oberman]

rpavich,

With all due respect there is a single layer of some kind of fabric on top of a rubber pad. I guess I am not convinced that the pad is nearly soft enough for my lenses. It is certainly firmer and far less sensitive than a little piece of cotton or microfiber cloth on my finger tip.

Perhaps I am overly cautious.

Mickey