Guess it depends on what exactly dissapponted you with your 17-85? Since it is an "S", I'm assuming that you are using a digital (1.6 multiplier?). None in the range mentioned are then really wide angle. And in this range, I'd find the cost of IS better spent on a good tripod. So much depends on individual style and expectations. As a general purpose lens, I find the 24-70mm f/2.8 [on a Canon 20D] gets quite a bit of use. It tends to now be my "default" lend when I'm not really sure something else would work better.

It is not cheap, nor is it lightweight.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1269837

I'd suggest using a utility like Photomatix rather than Photoshop, as it is easier to use and provides more interesting tone mapping variations. A trial version (with a watermark) can be downloaded for testing. [I've not used the other application mentioned; it may be fine also.]

This was one of my first attempts: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1269837

I'm confident P.in.F. and Danny will steer a steady course, and be guiding inspirations to all the creative folk here. Sincere best wishes.

There's been some very nice shots of waterfalls posted over the last year in LWITG. [http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1185086]. I can't remember all the photographers' names, so hopefully they will jump in here with comments. Working on an overcast day seems to be the real key trick to prevent the water from washing out. Then, as indicated, use a low ISO value, and maybe a filter, to allow increasing the exposure time. Many of the digital cameras do not allow long exposures. Can always put the camera on a tripod and take several frames, then combine them with software.

Make sure whatever you do get allows you to adjust gamma and color balance. Some of the early inexpensive LCD screens did not, (or, there were so many strange interactions between the screen, video card, windows, photoshop, and profiles, that "practically" it was impossible to adjust things!). I suspect this has been solved for the relatively high-end screens mentioned above. All color is illusion, Grasshopper. Tune your own system to make prints the way you like them. If you are in a business, and using commercial printers, you already know the rules (or you have a boss to tell them to you). I've found that the LCD on my laptop is a LOT brighter than my CRT. [In my Gallery, most of the Malaysia series are off of the laptop, and some now look way too dark on my desk. I had to do a lot of re-adjustment to get correct prints. This isn't a limitation of either technology; just a need to get the workflow consistant.] The reality is, if you publish to the Web, every viewers' monitor will be different. [For the quarterly banner contest, I once submitted an entry that had gamma, brightness, and color patches so at least everyone in the Forum would be adjusted closely. It lost. ] Like Cyn, I generally use Viewsonic CRT's. I built a BIG desk out of a couple sheets of 4X8 plywood. I curse the weight on the rare occasions I need to move them. But they work, and are now quite a bargain.

Snow is particularly challenging, and you handled it quite nicely. Not sure you'd want this shot much different; it shouts cold! In general, there are a couple approaches: a) Color negative film has a wider exposure range than slide film. b) For B&W, you can reduce the development time to reduce contrast. Not practical for most. c) Some folks have had good results with split neutral density filters, if you can get them to line up OK with the horizon. d) For landscapes, there is a good technique here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml e) With digital, should shoot using RAW mode, checking the histogram to mahe sure that highlights aren't completely lost. Can then do wonders in an image manipulation program like Photoshop. f) In Photoshop, try LAB mode. You can use curves adjustment to selectively change contrast in the very light and very dark regions, without messing up the colors.

So sad! Always to full of life and adventure.

1152X864 on my left and right screens. Strange....

"I used the digital noise removal tool; I used soft focus (30%) to 'smooth' water 'waves';" Ah! Nicely done!

In Chicago, its been my experience that arguing with a cop is a BAD idea at any time, whatever the actual law. I've used my tripod all around the city, and maybe just got lucky, but have never had a problem. I have, however, been stopped from just taking "tourist snaps" without a tripod at the train station because of "security concerns." Shedd Aquarium does not allow using a tripod, which seems reasonable with the close packed "schools" of tourists. The Field Museum allows cameras except for special exhibits. Supposedly one can obtain a free tripod permit from the information desk for the regular exhibits. [I want to try this on my next Field trip, as some of the Native American artifacts are very dimly lighted.] The Art Institute does not seem to allow cameras, period. Sketchbooks and pencil are OK, but you need a permit to set up an easel. Apparently this permit is rather easy to get, as I've seen lots of folks painting the paintings. So far, none of the residents at the two local zoos have complained about cameras or tripods, and are generally quite happy to pose. Some of the links I've included here are informative. Perhaps the mods would like to add a couple of them to the resource area, as this topic seems to come up a lot. But always remember it is a VERY bad idea to argue with a cop. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/27/chicagos_bean_sculpt.html http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/ http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf http://www.mobar.org/press/medhnbk3.htm http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

I bought one from Wally-Mart a few months back with the same intention. The glass inside has many wax blobs stuck to it, so was not really happy with result. Any way to clean the insides of these, or do you just get used to it after staring for awhile?