Thanks

I guess my question is - for such a vertical subject, why the square composition? Why have 2/3 of the frame devoted to "nothingness" that everyone else seems to be concerned with (what happened to the subject? yes, it could be a bit more subdued - but the fact that everyone is so concerned with the background screams that there is little or no attention being payed to the subject of the photo). One problem from the original post - washed-out highlights on the subject. Another thing - even though this is perfect technically - the subject really doesn't have any "special" qualities that separate it from most other sprouts. This is coming from a purely objective perspective - and I hope I haven't offended anyone (skins seem to be getting thinner 'round here) Wolf

Hmmm...read through everything...seems time for a change of topic...anyone seen Dodge Ball? The movie sucked, I thought. Ooops - sorry - go toff topic. Back to the topic - wipe your nose and get over it - guess that's all I had to say.

Wow - that sounds pretty cool! I may have to check that sucker out! (Been looking for a smaller camera to carry around - for reference shooting or family gatherings, etc.)

As for the higher ISO setting - I don't really see why - unless it's the slight blur of the duck itself (which I think adds to the image). It looks like you have more than enough depth of field, so if you want a slightly faster shutter speed, open the aperture a touch? Seems to me that a faster ISO will only open the door to noise. Just my opinion. Wolf (Nice grab, BTW!!)

Point taken - let me clarify what i meant. Most modern digital cameras have some sort of LCD screen, which pretty much eliminates the problems (such as parallax correction) that you normally would have with a strict "rangefinder" system by giving you an accurate representation of what the lens is actually seeing. BTW - just out of curiosity (not familiar with the camera), does the rangefinder (or viewfinder...?) adjust focal length as you zoom the shooting lens?

Going back in time when the question was between "SLR" or "Rangefinder" - there were several plusses that rangefinders brought into play (as well as several plusses that SLRs introduced). First off, a rangefinder typically uses a leaf shutter - much quieter and smoother than a focal plane shutter/mirror combo - no mirror slap to blur images in the 1/4 sec. range. Also, no maximum flash sync speed (way back when, you had to be at 1/60 or lower for electronic flash - any faster than that and you had to resort to flash bulbs (M3, press-25, etc. - the burn was actually longer than the short duration of the shutter speed). SLRs, on the other hand, eliminated parallax problems that many rangefinders had - you could see exactly what you were getting on film (or at least, 97% accurate, anyway). They also allowed you to change lenses without having to adjust the viewfinder - not to mention they allowed you to see what your filters were going to look like in the final shot (try using a polerizer on a rangefinder and you'll see what I mean. Today, cameras that use an LCD screen don't (in my opinion) qualify as "rangefinder" cameras - you're seeing what the sensor is seeing - more like an SLR.....but really an SLV (single lens view - just made that up - cute huh?) Anywho - my $3.62 worth Wolf

I can thpell, but the thituation ith that I thimply am lackin the "eth" key on my thythtemth keyboard - it'th buthted - I'm thad to thay that any thincere attempth at thcribing any thtupendouth thayingth would be a therious wathte of utherth thenthes. Thincerely, Tham Thmith

One neat thing about PhotoShop is that there are three ways to do just about everything you could want to do - the program was designed with the cooperation of a photographer, a graphic artist , and a process printing pro. For the most part, this mans that there is an easy (quick) way, a "more advanced" way, and a "radically complex" way to accomplish every tweak you can imagine. I have no experience with PSP, but I have yet to see seamless integration of PSP files into InDesign, etc. There is a reason why PhotoShop is the industry flagship - because it offers all of the features that pros could possibly want in a image editing application. The reason it may not be quite as capable with text (although CS is QUITE capable) - is that it is NOT a page-layout application - you create the image in PS, then it's placed in a page-layout program like Quark or InDesign. Does this mean that PS is a better investment? Unless you plan to utilize the capabilities that PSP doesn't have, probably not. Kinda like buying a Ferrari to drive along the local streets at 35MPH - kind of a waste.

Certificates and diplomas can't really hurt - but what an art director is going to look at is your images - and they don't really care to see the same images that your teacher offered them before she decided to teach instead of do. A "Fun-Time" job with a company comes with a whole lot of restrictions - all of a sudden, you're shooting photos that the company wants and your own vision gets lost - yes, you're into the photographic field you wanted - but all of a sudden you cannot shoot what you want to shoot - you've become a puppet to those who have no creative vision (that's why they're in the position they're in - can't do, so they tell others how to do....but they can't really "do' so they don't know what's to be done - if you get my meaning.) Yes, by all means, get involved with a shooter who is in the field you want to get into - but, more than that, build up a portfolio of your own images - with your own style - and submit them regularly to publications that encompass your particular field of interest. The majority of them will be returned, but you will hit one here and again. Eventually you will build a name in your field and have a bit of clout - working with someone else or not. Best thing to do is keep shooting - do it for yourself, not for the career - that's what will get you there. Wolf

It's actually an industrial grinder for shredding just about anything. (at trade shows, we fill the hopper up with bowling balls, and this thing turns them into dust at the rate of 4 to 6 tons per hour! Turns full automotive radiators into 1/4 inch metal chunks at about the same rate! The building gets cropped out - just the machine for the interface. I posted it here more to show what could be done with a photograph (as far as color alterations) - but it might be good in the Photoshop forum as well.

Actually - no - the sky was there - but thank you for playing! You win the weekly "ATTABOY" prize!!! (In all seriousness - the sky was the sky - no manipulation)

Yup - the curves are a bit nuts - but once you get ahold oft hem, the world becomes a whole lot easier. The point directly opposite from where you drag is the magnet that draws the curves towards them - takes a bit of getting used to.