I have the Tamron 18-270 for my Nikon D60. Good walk-about lens. My only complaint is that it slides out far too easily. Tip the
camera forward at all, and the lens extends. I really would like a
stiffer movement.

What's the problem, though?

A DNG file is a RAW file. You can edit that file
in Lightroom. When you export that file from Lightroom,
you can export it as a .jpg. You really haven't lost
anything at all.

Some photos from the Christy Moore training facility

Non-destructive editing is not a term that describes the loss of pixels by compression of .jpgs.

It describes editing in such a way that the original image is retained without any changes. People who shoot and work with .jpg only can edit a file non-destructively by using SAVE AS and giving the saved file a different name. The original .jpg is retained.

Using Elements or Photoshop, the .jpg shooter can do non-destructive editing by making the edits on a new layer(s) and saving that file as a .psd. However, if the file is cropped or re-sized, the original size cannot be recovered. If the file is flattened to make a .jpg, the original version is gone.

Lightroom allows the user to crop or re-size non-destructively and retain the original file intact.

The real point to be learned is that the user should edit non-destructively, and that can be done in Elements or Lightroom.
Elements just requires an additional SAVE AS step.

Your terminology is a bit off, which leads me to believe you don't have a full understanding of what happens.

"Destructive" editing means editing a file and saving it by over-writing the original with the new version. The original
version cannot be accessed again. In "non-destructive" editing, the original file is not over-written with a new version.

Changes made to a RAW file, in Lightroom or Elements, are non-destructive because the original version is not altered. In Elements, you Open Image after any adjustments to the RAW and create a new version by Save As and creating a .jpg, .tiff, or .psd.

In either Lightroom or Elements your original RAW image can be re-opened and re-edited without losing anything.

Destructive editing is when you re-edit a .jpg, or a .tiff or .psd flatten the layers, and Save. The version cannot be restored to the way it was before the re-editing. Editing a .psd or .tiff
can be done non-destructively if you retain Background layer unedited and make the edits on new layers.

Don't worry about destructive editing in Elements if you start with a RAW file.

Yes, they'll almost pose for you if you're patient:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2009-04-01-1.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/2009-05-10-1.jpg

Thanks, DennisG and RWCRNC, for the comments on my photo.

My point was that the lens the OP is using is capable of getting a close and detailed dragonfly shot. I was using a similar lens.

Actually, I have the Tamron 18/300 lens, but I purchased that after taking the dragonfly shot.

It's harder to track a dragonfly in flight than it is to catch one perched on something. The trick is to watch the area for awhile and notice where they tend to land. They'll land and take flight again, but tend to land in the same place.

If the OP picks a spot to watch, and pre-sets the zoom to fill the frame at that spot, he'll have his shot within minutes. He should pick landing spot separated from the background so the bokeh is sufficiently blurred even at a fairly high f/stop up to f/8 or so.

The one in my photograph is a Blue Dasher.

There's no mention of capturing a dragonfly in flight. The OP wants to photograph a dragonfly. If so, the OP has to get close and fill the frame with the dragonfly. Otherwise, it's a photo of a pond with a dragonfly in the scene.

That's a shot of a pond, not a shot of a dragonfly. You have to zoom in considerably to get the dragonfly. Fill your viewfinder with the subject.

This shot was taken at 1/400th, f/8, ISO 200, at 200mm with a 55/200mm kit lens.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-tK4V3v9/0/XL/2009-04-23-9-XL.jpg

That's not necessarily what I would do if I was entering an image in a camera club competition as "Texture".

An object with a lot of texture in the make-up of the object could be presented. For example, an image of a window with a lace curtain could represent "texture" since the curtain has a lot of texture. The entire window and a bit of the surround could be included.

In the case of the OP's submission, I would agree that the fossil should be a macro or close-up filling the frame, though.

It all depends on the subject.

I meant to include that each entry is critiqued by one judge, so
we do know where the image failed or succeeded.

My camera club's mandate, or topic, is "Texture" this month. Due Monday. Ours are scored by 3 judges, though, so there's no voting by the members.

As far as your image, the texture is there but your image isn't close enough to show texture. Perhaps a close-up or macro would have fared better. Everything has some texture to it, but the objective is to feature the texture.

The image as shown on my screen doesn't
have a problem, but it sounds like you
are seeing "blow-out" areas in the horse's coat.
This is a common problem when shooting a dark
horse that is wet or sweaty.

The water droplets act as tiny mirrors reflecting
light. Specular highlights, if you want the
more specific term. A dark horse, or any other
short-haired animal, is a problem if the sun
hits the droplets the right way.

I often shoot at a harness horse training track
where sweaty horses are on the track. I can
reduce or eliminate the problem by using a
circular polarizer when taking the shots.

Short of extensive cloning, the problems isn't
correctable in post, and large patches of this
blow-out just can't be cloned effectively and
still look natural.





I often shoot at a
harness horse training track and

A circular polarizing filter in place will blue up the sky.

I don't see this mentioned, so I'll bring it up. When possible, I take multiple shots of a scene and try to get a wide shot and a tight shot. The wide shot gives me more composition-by-cropping opportunity in post.

I read the "rules" of composition and I'm aware of them. I consider things like leading space, negative space, rule of thirds, avoiding half-and-half vertical and horizontal splits, diagonals leading to a corner, and all the other points.

But, at crunch time when doing post, each photo is a unique challenge and I follow the basic rule of "Crop to present the image to its best advantage". Sometimes that means following some or all the rules, and sometimes that means ignoring all of them.

In some of your images, I would crop to either include all of the peripheral people or crop to completely exclude them. Bits and pieces of people on the edge of a photograph should be avoided if possible.

Also, you have to decide if you are presenting a bull rider or presenting a scene that includes the bull rider. The people who aren't on the bull can add to the interest of the image.