"And please explain how shooting this in B&W would have made a difference in exposure with the snow? I don't understand how that would effect anything" - black and white film can reproduce a far greater range of light than colour film can, and so when shooting a picture of very bright objects next to very dark objects, b&w is my personal film of choice. however, thats not to say that there is anything WRONG with the picture as posted, its just not as i would have done it, and i certainly dont think that everyone should do things my way. i didnt mean to cause any offence, i do genuinely like the photo.

AHHA! thanks michelle. the software looks good, but not sure about the 200 price tag... might have to test the demo out, however.

i would just work out the maximum size that the images are (looks like 800x600 approx), then set all the windows to that, then have the image centred in the page. that way it will be better for people on smaller screens, as well as looking nicer.

i think it might have been better taken with a B&W film, as you could probably aviod over-exposing the snow. nice photo, though.

as far as i know it depends on the optics in your scanner, and the optics in your camera. A truly high-end scanner shouldnt produce any grain at all, assuming you have a decent camera and lens... but i think there must be messages missing on my screen, as lots of the above comments seem to be reffering to previous comments that are not there. hmmm.

looks good, nice and easy to navigate. would be good if when you clicked on the thumb the new window opened the right size, and without menus, address bar etc. (just simple javascript, not hard to do)

grrr- i had a nice one lying around :/ oh well - i f i can get my camera fixed in time will try and do another.

i think the point he seems to be making in interesting from a pyschological point of view, but i do appreciate how some photographers who take photos of women for 'geniune' reasons of art may feel somewhat sore on this subject. i do think that perhaps it may not be quite significant enough to get worked up over, however...

hmmm - am i allowed to use previosly taken photos, or do i have to take new ones? not entirely sure which 'zone' to enter in, as i fall somewhere between the two, but i suppose i will have to work out that one for myself.

for some reason my montior has just discarded all my nicely set colour calibration thingys, and now what is blue to me is purple to everyone else. GRRRRR, how i hate windows :(

my camera's light meter is brokem, so i dont have a lot of choice :) besides, im so used to using it now i can be very, very quick. for filters, i just put the over the end of the light-meter when using them - not 100% perfect in theory, but works fine in practice, or i think so anyway. one of these days, ill get round to uploading some of my photos and let you judge for yourselves...

nice... i dont think they have those over here though. it looks to me like the cover of some tech magazine.

30 secs should be enough... it may take a fair amount of ND filters to ge that low down though. as far as i know, an ND 8 just allows through 1/8 of the light, ND4 1/4 of the light ND2 1/2 of the light. that could be me remebering wrongly - i havent got my book to hand.

personally - i have a rule. if i want to say anything negative, i also find something positive. if i cant find anything positive, i keep my mouth shut. doesnt work quite so well the other way round though...

that looks nice and soft - gentle is perhaps the best word. it also looks sad/wistful, but then that could be a function of the music im listening to. not a great fan of the ebossed edges, however. if you have to edge it at all, how about a bleed to white? is the text a font? if so which? it looks really nice. as for the composition - i think it looks good as it is - it makes it look natural to have the petals randomly scattered.