Use exposure compensation. Underexpose (I would try 1/2 stops from 1/2 to 1 1/2 for starters) to get the backs the way you want them, then use shadow adjustment to lighten the shadows. Of course there's always HDR...

The only shot you can't do anything with is the one you didn't take.

If you have two cameras one with a full frame sensor and the other with an APS-c sensor and both sensors are exactly the same except for size (same kind and number of pixels per square MM etc.), if you crop the image from the full frame sensor to exactly the same size as the image from the APS-c sensor the cropped image from the full frame sensor will be identical to the image from the APS-c sensor (same number of pixels, same resolution, etc). If you blow the two images up they will look the same at all magnifications.

Your software displays full frame and aps-c images the same size because it enlarges the image from c sensors.

A lens of a given focal length that can be used on both types of camera simply shows more of the subject area when used on a full frame camera.

If you want the best quality image and you want the 'reach' of an aps-c sensor the best way to do it is usually to use a full frame camera and crop the image because full frame cameras usually have higher quality sensors. All pixels are not created equal. There are many valid reasons for choosing an aps-c sensor camera over a full frame camera (cost, size, weight, etc.) but extended reach of the lens is not one of them.

Another way of looking at it is that if you shot a subject with an aps-c camera and backed off with a full frame camera so you shot the same subject subject at the same 'magnification' with the full frame camera and both camera sensors were identical except for size the full frame image would have more pixels than the aps-c image so it could be enlarged to a greater size. One advantage of a full frame camera over and aps camera if that you can always crop unwanted information out of a full frame image a lot easier than you can add information to a 'cropped' image.

I have used Velcro for many years. It works. When I forget where I put the cap I check the strap and it is still there.

I do a lot of outdoor and wildlife photography so I spend a lot of time going through heavy brush, snow in winter when temperatures are often below 0 and making frequent lens changes. I have never lost a cap from it coming off the Velcro even when busting through heavy brush. When I change lenses the cap is right there where I can grab it quickly. I do not recommend carrying lenses uncovered in a pack. In the terrain where I spend most of my time a lens would probably be trash after one or two hikes if it was not covered.

I put the Velcro 'hook' side on the strap and the 'loop' side on the cap. If you put the hook on the cap it sticks to a lot of things you don't want it to including the insides of lens cases.

When the lens is not on the camera I keep both ends covered so both front and rear lens caps have loop Velcro patches on them.

It can also be helpful to put a Velcro patch on the side of the lens hoods. I don't recommend carrying a hood this way when hiking, but it can be a handy way to keep the hood out of the way while changing lenses, putting filters on, etc.

I use self sticking Velcro. If you have a narrow strap or it doesn't stick well to the strap simply overlap the strap and put Velcro on both sides so the patches stick to each other.

I also use Velcro to hold a memory card pouch on the strap so the pouch does not move on the strap and I know where it is when I need to do a fast card change.

A small patch of Velcro on the tripod and a remote trigger is also handy if you use a remote trigger or flash.

Here (Alaska) if you don't have what you need where you can get it immediately you will miss a lot of shots. I often go back and forth between an 11-16 mm or 17-85 mm lens and the 70 - 200 mm lenses. A scenic shot may be interrupted when an animal walks into it and I need to switch from wide angle to telephoto and have seconds (maybe) to make the switch. If you have the equipment, cards, etc., right there you will still miss most of the shots because things change fast, especially when shooting wildlife, but you will get a few good shots that would otherwise be stored only in the Mark I memory behind your eyes.

I believe there is considerable confusion here.

1. There is no degradation of image resolution when it is cropped. The image (file size) is smaller, but the resolution is the same. The use of smaller sensors introduces much of the confusion. A Canon aps-c sensor is 0.625 the area of a full frame sensor.

If you have two cameras one with a full frame sensor and one with an aps-c sensor and the sensors are identical except for the size, if you take the same shot with the same lens from the same spot with both cameras the image from the full frame camera will cover a wider area than the aps-c image. If you crop the full frame image to include just what is in the aps-c image the cropped image will be identical to the '-c image. Same resolution, same number of pixels etc.

There is a lot more to image quality than number of pixels. teh Canon 1Dx has 18 megapixels, but it's images are far better than my 18 meg images from a 7D becasue teh pixels (lens sites on the sensor) are 'better.'

I have heard many photographers say they like the aps-c cameras for wildlife and birds because of the magnification factor. You can get the same magnification if you put your lens (say a 500 mm) on a full frame camera and crop the image. When Photoshop (or any editor/browser program) displays the image they display the image from and aps-c the same size as the image from a full frame camera; in short the aps-c image is magnified by the browser, not by the camera.

Now if you want to shoot an eagle's head to fill the frame you can shoot from closer to the bird to fill the full frame with the head and you will have a larger file (more information) than you will if you fill the aps-c frame with the head. You can blow the full frame image up a lot larger than the aps-c image if neither is cropped.

If you use a teleconverter you increase the magnification (decrease the area of coverage) of the lens so you can fill the full frame with the eagle's head from the same spot you fill the aps-c frame giving you a larger file (more pixels) for the same image.

To have the best of both worlds at the lowest cost, use a full frame camera and if you can't get close enough to fill the frame, crop it. If you want 'closer' shots use a teleconverter if it is sharp enough or get a longer lens.

For the record, I have aps-c cameras. The reason is I can't afford the full frame bodies, not the mythical 'magnification.'

That said there are other reasons to use aps-c bodies. They can be smaller and lighter. They are definitely cheaper, but they do not magnify anything. They simply crop the area photographed when you push the button.

I use a 7D. I have the old 100-400. The only thing wrong with it is the 'trombone zooming. The new 100-400 should be great.

When I don't need something shorter than 70 mm I use the 70-200 2.8 IS. This is a fabulous lens. I have often wished a lens was faster, never that one was slower. With the 2X extender you have a 400 with about the same speed as the 100-400.

If you use a 70-200 f4, my bet is you will be happy with it until you try the 2.8.

If your weight concern is because you are hand holding the 2.8 IS is good for hand held shooting and the speed allows using faster shutter speeds.

For wildlife that you want more than 400 mm for most photographers I know prefer the 500 f4 with a good tripod. With extenders you can also go to 700 and 1000mm with a loss of speed and auto exposure with the 2x.

The speed of a lens expressed as an f-number was originally calculated by dividing diameter of the objective (front) lens by the focal length of the lens. A 200mm length lens with a 50mm objective lens would have a speed (f-value) of 50/200 or 1:4. If you look at the front of Canon (and most other quality lenses you will see the speed of the lens properly expressed as a reciprocal. The 200-400 lens is a 1:4 lens.

Common practice is to ignore the 1 when expressing lens speed therefore a 1:4 lens is usually called an f4 lens. This, of course confuses many, (including a Popular Photography columnist who got it backwards) who cannot understand why bigger numbers such as f8 let in less light than small numbers such as f2. If you either read f-value of the lens on the front of the lens or simply remember that f-stops are actually reciprocals is is easy to see that 1/2 is larger than 1/8.

Today, of course, with different types of glass and changes in lens technology the f-stop value is actually an index because simply calculating the f-value from lens length and diameter would result in some f4 lenses being 'faster' than some f-2 lenses.

Over time cotton can scratch lenses. On eyeglasses with plastic lenses this becomes apparent after about a year. It will take longer on glass lenses and will probably affect coatings before it does the glass.

I tried a number of the microfiber cleaning cloths and found them to be terrible. Not absorbent, smeared liquid, etc. And they usually cost between $5 and $8.

For years now I have been using microfiber towels (16" x 16") from Costco or Sam's - usually in the automotive section. They come in packages of 36 or so for about $16; less than 50 cents each. They work great for both camera lenses and glasses. I do not use lens cleaners; just the towels.

For eyeglasses what usually works well is to just hold the lens under hot water for a few seconds and blot dry. Camera lenses can be wiped dry. If moisture is needed I just breathe on the lens and wipe it.

For what it's worth I like to keep my lenses clean and I do not want to damage them, particularly the 500 f4.

The towels are washable, but for 50 cents you can retire them to car washing duty. I carry them in Zip-Lock bags and keep one in each camera bag, photo vest etc. So I always have one handy.

If I encounter something the towel can't handle (which is rare) I use a Lens Pen. I also use a Lens Pen to clean the sensor if necessary (separate Pens for lens and sensor).

Before wiping the lens or the sensor with anything I blow them off with a Giottis Rocket blower.

Art Morris has been using the 7D II and has written extensively about it on his blog. Art is renowned for his bird photography so his comments would probably answer you questions about wildlife, etc. I would definitely recommend you check his blog.

Art Morris has been using the 7D II and has written extensively about it on his blog. Art is renowned for his bird photography so his comments would probably answer you questions about wildlife, etc. I would definitely recommend you check his blog.

Art Morris has been using the 7D II and has written extensively about it on his blog. Art is renowned for his bird photography so his comments would probably answer you questions about wildlife, etc. I would definitely recommend you check his blog.

I am inclined to err on the safe side and not try the PGI 9 inks in the Pro-10 so I am interested in selling or trading them for 72's.

What I have is one unopened boxed set - one each of the ten ink colors, plus 7 individually boxed carts (2-R, 1-GY, 1-Y, 1-C, 1-M, 1-PM), plus 5 carts still sealed in plastic pouches (2-PBK, 1-MBK, 2-PC). The total is 22 new sealed carts.

I can also include the 10 used carts that were in the printer when it quit. I have found that when carts sit for a while, if they dry out a bit wipe them with a wet Q-tip and give them a shake (you can see if there is ink in them) and they work fine.

Since I am in Anchorage it will cost a bit to ship them.

I would like to 'net' a box (10-set) of PGI-72's.

You can or call me at 907-345-0190. If you call from a cell phone the best number is my cell (907-244-3232) cell to cell calls are free to me and to calls from ATT phones.

Jim Magowan

My Canon 9500 Pixma Pro printer died suddenly. It used PGI 9 ink cartridges and the sudden demise of the 9500 left me with a couple of hundred dollars worth of PGI 9 cartridges.

I replaced it with the Canon Pixma Pro-10 printer which uses PGI 72 cartridges. The PGI 9 and PGI 72 cartridges look identical, including the electrical contacts. I have emailed Canon and asked if there is any difference in the cartridges. The response completely ignored the question. Does anyone know if the PGI 9 and PGI 72 ink carts are interchangeable or what the difference is between them other than the cartridge labels.?

When I bought my first DSLR - a Canon 20D I compared the pixel density of the 20D and the 5D. It turned out the PD was the same for both cameras. If the same subject was shot from the same distance, at the same focal length and the 5D image was cropped to be the same as the 20D image both images had the same number of pixels. This meant that the image cropped from the 5D and the 20 D image had the same resolution (number of pixels). Assuming the pixels were of equal quality in both cameras, if you used the 5D you could always crop to the 20D sized image and have exactly the same image.

As I understand it the 5D actually had 'better' pixels so if you didn't mind the work of cropping you had a better image than that of the 20D.

This is far more complicated now. The 1DX, Canon's top body shoots 18 MP images. Since the 7DII shoots 20 MP images does this mean that you get better images, better enlargements etc., from the 7DII? I seriously doubt it. There is more to image quality than number of pixels (Nikon has the 36 MP 800-830 but this is not the top Nikon body).

Canon isn't very good at providing information, but I would try asking them how large you could enlarge an image from the 6D that was cropped to show the portion of the image taken with a 7DII (same lens, focal length, etc). I would then compare the operating parameters of the 7DII with the 6D. The 7D might process faster, etc. The camera you buy should be the one that best performs what you are doing.

If you have been shooting with an aps-c camera and the images have been suitable I would be inclined to go with the 7DII - newer technology, new image processor, longer life shutter etc. If you want to capture more of the scene just use a wider angle lens.

Cruises are great, but for photography I recommend touring in an RV (motorhome). You can probably fly to Anchorage and rent a MH for less then a cruise and spend all of your time seeing the state. Pick up a copy of The Milepost at Costco or Sam's and if you have time, contact some locals for tips on where to go to see what most interests you as well as tips on places most people do not know about.

Alaska Society of Outdoor and Nature Photographers (ASNOP) website can give you an idea of what photography is like up here and you can probably make some contacts thru ASNOP.

With an RV you can carry good gear (I carry everything from the 500 f4 to an 11-16 mm wide angle). It is a good idea to pick up a can of bear spray. Some people also recommend carrying a firearm (if you are proficient with a large bore rifle you can use it for self-defense, if you have time. If you carry a handgun you can fire all but the last round at the bear. if that doesn't stop the bear put the muzzle in your mouth and fire the last round.

The odds are you will not have a problem even if you have a close encounter with a bear, but odds are no comfort when you are being chewed on (in my experience). The rest of the world is O.K. for photography if you can't be in Alaska.

I understand your feelings however you might want to consider the facts:

1. The subscription has nothing to do with whether you can use your images or not. If you drop your subscription you cannot use the application (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc). If you shoot RAW you can open the RAW file in any application that supports your camera's RAW format. Canon, for example provides DPP with its DSLR's and some photographers (Art Morris, for example) have gone to DPP to process the RAW files (they use Photoshop to do a lot of processing after the RAW is converted).

Unless you save an image in a format that only Photoshop can read, once you save it you can open it in any application that supports the file format (tiff, jpeg, etc.). If you save RAW files they can be opened in any application that supports your camera's RAW format.

2. The current subscription price of $9.99 a month for PS +LR is less than the upgrade cost were.

3. A problem I have with CC is that you are constantly using 'beta' software. You are never sure what it is going to do. I shoot RAW+jpeg hi rez images. I download them in Bridge. CC decided that the jpeg's and RAW's should be separated instead of displayed side by side which is not what I want, but so far have not been able to find out how to change it back.

On one batch of images CC dropped all of the RAW's and saved only the JPEGS. Imagine how thrilled I am that the RAW files for my first images of my first great granddaughter taken the day after she was born were 'lost' by CC.

It's nice to have all the new features as soon as they dream them up, but I don't appreciate it when they mess up my work flow or lose my images.

If you want a relatively cheap 'backup' get a copy of PS Elements. If you drop PS CC Elements will do a lot of the basics.

I think Adobe needs to hire at least on person with common sense (their technical people create some of the greatest and most difficult to learn and use software). It wouldn't be brain surgery to offer a buyout price so you could 'freeze' your CC subscription at the end of, say, a year and continue to use it with no upgrades or updates (and pay a fee to go back to CC if you decided to). People would be a lot more comfortable going to CC and I doubt many who currently buy upgrades would drop CC.