I edited the .cr2 file, - and saved a copy of it. I deleted the RSR file, - still getting the same result. :(

Oh, - I LIKE! what a wonderful picture! Thank you for sharing it!! :) Britt

Thank you VirtualSite. Yes, I have noticed the cap problem. lol I modelled it on the Poser one without hair. :) B

I couldn't agree more, billglaw. lol I've always taken a LOT of pictures, film or no film. The major advantage with my digital camera is what you say, - that I can take lots, - and discard the most of the pictures. When it comes to the "trained eye" I think I do have that. Trained in the sense that I've had to vizualize in most of my adult life. Either in the form of making layout, taking pictures, making graphics to illustrate things etc. Maybe it's a good thing that it's unconcious, maybe the best pictures are taken when we intuitively "feel" it's right. I do agree with you too Alpha. I think that forums like this is an important source for a lot of things. Sharing knowledge is one thing, - another is to get inspiration and ideas from others work. This picture was taken practically mid-day. And normally that makes for very flat and poor pictures here in the FL sun. So rather thinking "light" here, I find myself thinking "shade". :) The windows are pointed east, I think. But since the sun was shining straight down, more or less, that shouldn't matter much. And thank you! :) I'm glad you guys like it too. Britt

I THINK that this tank acutally had a light source inside. So my main goal was to position myself so that I could benefit from the light inside the tank. One problem in places like this is of course that you're rarely alone. So you'll have to avoid getting the reflection of all the other people in your picture. Hmm... what else? OK. I think I'm done! Britt

The shark tank was partially in the open, - this picture is taken from inside the building, - a floor lower than the beast stayed. :) The principle is the same, - I used back light, - just shot the shark up towards the light, crossed my fingers, and was prepared to take another one. *lol*

:) I was just too late to reach you this chat session! Anyhow. I've taken some pictures in aquariums, most of them NO good, - but some of them at least good enough to be used to illustrate what not to and what to do. *lol* Circumstances around these pictures: They are taken 4 years ago, with the first generation Casio digital cameras. The technology has come a LONG way since then. Also Monterey aquarium is pretty professionally set up, - meaning that several of the tanks seem to be set up for photography. They had back lights. Like this one. What I did (in addition to take a LOT of pictures that are rubbish) - was of course NO flash light. :) The light is the crucial thing here and in the next picture, - the light source was a bit different....

Finland! :) Land of the Lakes (and saunas :)! I bet you have shot a lot of wonderful nature pictures! Alas, the Nordic colors aren't that plentiful, since I moved over here 4 years ago. But we do go to Norway to visit my kids at least once a year, so I have SOME pictures from the far North. :) Britt

:) I kinda didn't think it would fit, Slynky. And thanks for pointing me to the right direction. I've been over there, - and posted one that might fit the intentions of the contest better. Britt

Very nice! :)

You're welcome Syyd. :) JordyArt: It's not a plugin. I used the hatchformed brushes in Photoshop. There are two; one 25 pts and an one 48. I just added a layer, and drizzled them all over! :)) Britt

Hmm... So I have to go through every body part and apply the texture individually with Eve?? Interesting!! Thanks though! Britt

Thank you, Alpha! :) This is one of the pictures that I actually haven't "photoshopped" at all. I'm by no means a "purist" - in the sense that I mean that one should NOT photoshop ones pictures. I am Uhm... opinionated ;)in that I find that if you have a "goal" with your picture, - by any means, - use the tools that you have access to. Just because Photoshop (or other editing tools) weren't available when I learned doesn't mean that it's not "right" to use them. I know that the winner of the "National Geographics" contest this year has created BIG waves in the photo classes at least here in Florida. Simply because it's pretty clear that the picture IS edited. But it's a darned good picture!! :) The "purist" debate is by no means new. :) It was alive and well when I went to the university to learn journalism now 30 (yicks!!) years ago. And there were a lot of journalists who said that "this is an art, - it cannot be taught... you have to learn it the hard way, - by doing it". Ehh.. lol Well, - since I taught journalists to be, - I guess that tells what my opinions about that is.. :) Photography is something VERY interesting to me, - and my hubby will occationally roll his eyes, - when I just HAVE to "shoot that" ... uhm.. and one more of that... lol But he works in a large stock photography co. himself, - so in a way we kinda share that too. Hmm.. I guess I should have pushed the "nudity" button. Sorry 'bout that. And thanks again for the welcome. I don't think I have 2 forms to submit to the November contest... but I'm looking very much forward to the calendar one! :) Britt

I thought rather than get rid of the camera shake, - shy not use it..? :) you could add some stars, some blur (I blurred you) and I sharpened the little dreamy girl. And wishes are to be made this season, - aren't they?? :) Britt

Just a quick idea. Not even sure if the picture will upload. :) Britt