Just an aside … that is a handsome bird! Nice image!

Most likely answer is simply not enough light going into the eyes. Probably other possibilities, but that's what I would try to address first and see if gets the results you want. You could try a reflector angled for the eyes whether or not you're using flash, but others may have better suggestions. There are various post-production tricks you can use that might help as well, by themselves or in conjunction with solutions at the time of capture.

One question — are you getting the exposure for the rest of the face(s) as you prefer? Could you get a good photo with a slightly higher exposure? It might not be the answer, but trying it just for the heck of it will cost you nothing.

I have brown eyes. In photos, they can look Betazoid black, but get enough light in them and they can look caramel, hazel or even almost green.

See http://www.adobe.com/education/student-eligibility-guide.edu.html

One big attraction for me is that CS6 autosaves in the background -- every five minutes, IIRC. And I'm loving the Adaptive Wide Angle filter! It allowed me to finally fix a panorama I shot two years ago that had previously defeated all my efforts. And then there are the improvements to Adobe Camera RAW, especially the vastly improved Clarity slider.

If you can swing it, get it.

Yes, there a couple of ways to determine filter size for a given lens. The method above usually works, but sometimes I've seen the filter size somewhere on the lens barrel. Weird. If all else fails, look up the exact lens you have online and add "filter size" to the search terms -- should be able to find it very quickly that way.

One good rule of thumb for an expensive filter is to buy one that fits the lens you have (or plan to buy) that has the largest filter size. Then you can buy step-rings to adapt that filter to your other lenses.

Earlier in the thread, it was recommended that you still use a lens hood, even with a polarizer. This is a good idea (in general, if you have a lens hood you should use it in almost all situations), but it may be a difficult in practice. The hood might make it difficult or impossible to adjust the rotation of the filter. You might have to try adjusting the filter and then putting on the hood, if you can do so without knocking the filter out of the position you need. There are other tricks, but they're kind of wonky -- I once cannibalized a rubber lens hood for this purpose. I cut the screw thread part off and just kind of stretched the hood portion over the lens barrel, which left room to rotate the filter. Not perfect, but it worked!

It doesn't hurt! 8-)

Generally, I'm pretty good at counting the shutter clicks so I know where I am in a set. If that happens -- and if you take a look at my Flickr Photostream you'll see I do a lot of shooting in theme parks, so people wander into my shots a lot -- I'll usually reshoot the set. I may ignore whether anyone is in the shot until I get to the ones that were compromised in the previous set, or I may not. It takes me two seconds to set either camera I use to AEB -- I spend way more time on composition and such (to the consternation of my wife) than to my AEB settings. I've just practiced enough that those changes are quick and easy for me. I also long ago turned off the long exposure noise reduction because it takes too much time and I want to get on with life, and I can manage my noise reduction in post.

That said, I do sometimes go to full manual and shoot a huge set that way if I it is a difficult scene that I cannot easily repeat anytime soon. I'm also not afraid to move up my ISO to keep my exposures such that the longest one doesn't need to exceed 30 seconds. Sure, that has potential noise issues, but lots of very long exposures heat up your sensor, and that makes for noisy photos as well, even at a lower ISO.
Mine don't "buffer out," especially if I turn on Exposure Delay, as I usually do, to avoid "mirror slap." Now, if I immediately go into another set, I might hit the buffer limit, but I'm still probably done faster than if I had dialed everything manually. My D300 will hold 12 RAW shots in the buffer. The D7000 may have a smaller buffer, but I have to adjust exposure compensation after three shots, so it usually has a chance to clear anyway.

If you prefer shooting manually, there's no reason not to do so -- especially if you shoot manually in general. I could see doing that if it were the norm for me because I'd already be predisposed to working in manual. I just prefer AEB in most cases and shoot in Aperture-Priority.
I've found it to be less of a sacrifice than I originally expected. In the real world looking at prints (and I make lots of prints, some very large -- I have access to an Epson 9800), I find it rarely makes a difference I find objectionable.

Sitting three floors up and on the opposite side of the building I'm sitting in right now. I was working and making last minute wedding plans (through Yahoo IM) with my fiancée. She told me what was happening. We had a TV in the office we used now and then for editing video, and the building was wired for cable TV (something most people didn't know), so we hooked it up in time to see the first tower fall. We (now just I) run the graphics shop for our department, so we made signs to the effect that the university was closing for the rest of the day, posted them around our three buildings, then went home.

I visited Walt Disney World later in the week mainly to pick up some items for the wedding, and I've never seen the Magic Kingdom so lightly attended before or since (it's one of the slowest times of the year for the parks even under normal circumstances, and commercial flights had just resumed a couple of days earlier, which meant that many people who had planned trips there were unable to take them even if they wanted to go), but far more memorable than that was that I've never seen the place so relatively quiet and subdued. Some people were still unsure whether it was okay -- or safe -- to come out and play again. Don't get me wrong; people were having fun, especially the children, but there was a unique undercurrent of preoccupation with something else, a sense of being vaguely distracted. On the other hand, there was that same sense of unification that existed almost everywhere here in the days following the attack. On one level, there were guests and there were cast members, but there was an almost subliminal sense of any barriers that would normally impose being reduced or eliminated on that trip. More than once I made subtle but meaningful eye contact with cast members and other guests and felt an extra connection there. Only once did I make an verbal allusion to what had happened with a cast member, but an allusion seemed to be the closest either of us wanted to get in talking about it. People scanned the skies (there had been early reports the day of the attacks that the resort might be an active target in imminent danger), however briefly, especially any time a plane was seen or heard in the distance.

A few days after that -- 10 days after the attacks -- I got married and my bride and I went back to Walt Disney World for our honeymoon. Things were closer to normal by that point, but when we checked into our hotel (the Wilderness Lodge), the cast member at the check-in desk said, "It's nice to have happy occasions to celebrate again ... I'm so glad you came." That's just one of several things from those days I don't think I'll ever forget.

Many, many professional digital shooters swear by Nik Silver Efex Pro as by far the best way to go. See it here: http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php

Also, here's a Flickr group devoted to photos made using the software: http://www.flickr.com/groups/silver_efex_pro/

I think a polarizer is one of the few essential real-world filters that remain -- some of its effects cannot be duplicated in software.

I'll reiterate that you'll want to get what is called a "circular polarizer," or CPL. A linear polarizer can provide the same effects, but is likely to interfere with the metering systems in today's cameras. In fact, it might be harder to find a linear polarizer today than a CPL, other than on eBay.

I wouldn't rely on a CPL for lens protection, however. First, I don't like to use any filter for that purpose except in certain conditions. Second, a polarizing filter reduces the light coming into the lens, so using it indoors, for example, may make it harder for your lens to autofocus or to shoot handheld shots. Also, there are times when you won't want the effects it can provide. Use a polarizer for a reason, and if you don't have a reason to use it for a specific shot, don't.

Happens to me as well. I guess it is very easy for other people to spend your money for you! :lol: I just try to spell out in no uncertain terms that the budget is etched in stone and is not be exceeded under pain of grisly death; sometimes that helps.

Not sure what other lenses you might already have, OP, but if you have something like the 18-55 I'd seriously consider the Nikon 55-300 VR. It is reasonably-priced; it's about the same cost as the Tamron lens, and much less expensive than the Nikon 18-200. It will give you more "reach" than either of the other two, and is a very good lens.

Review by Thom Hogan: http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-55-300mm-DX-lens-review.htm

Yes, if you're upgrading from CS4 and felt comfortable with it, you'll hit the ground running with CS6. The interface elements are now dark gray as opposed to light gray, but I quickly found I like the new way. If you don't like it, there's an option to change it to a look very similar to the older versions.

Best features I've found so far: the new ACR with its vastly improved Clarity slider results, the Adaptive Wide Angle filter, and the fact that the new version auto-saves in the background.

Exactly; if you instead use "front-curtain sync" (the default in most cases), it will look like the car went 100 mph backwards into the frame.

And you'll find that in most cases, proving "what you would have been paid" under these circumstances will be extremely difficult at best. Hence ...
Captain C is exactly right. There's a high probability under these circumstances that you won't find an attorney who will take the case (at least on contingency, which is surely what you'd want).

EDIT: Wanted to add that I realize this isn't what the OP was contemplating anyway. I would have been mildly annoyed myself in her situation; clearly if you go to the trouble of adding a signature, you meant for it to be included. If this is a real friend, I would probably just say in the future, "Hey, when you post one of my images, could you please include the signature? Might make it easier for a potential customer to find me that way. Thanks!"

You can also use one to make a rainbow appear stronger and more distinct -- it's all in the twist!

Another use for an ND filter is when photographing fireworks. You can capture many bursts over a long period without having to close the shutter, and avoid having them get blown out, as in this 28-second exposure ...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8426/7520867854_2cda0dafb0.jpg
How Charming ... A Finale! by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr

That's the finale of Walt Disney World's "Wishes" show, and that's a relatively short exposure for me when using the filter for that show. Here's another one; this one covered 70 seconds:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2745/5856681738_8c91cfffe6.jpg
Wishes April 2 2011 Flickr by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr