In Full Uniform
Dudley Hanks
uniform. When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
"photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
background.
What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
bit. Did the flash hurt or help?
Mich In Snow:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg (BW,
fast loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW, full
size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-small.jpg
(colour, fast loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
(colour, full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon RAW)
BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can now
go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:
photos....@dudley-hanks.com
dha...@dudley-hanks.com
Donations will be greatly appreciated and used to:
* Upgrade my Canon equipment
* Venture into the Nikon world
* Go to exotic locales and snap exotic pics :)
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
First impressions:
- needs exposure boosted (~1.5 stops) so snow is white, not grey..
- focus is a little behind Mich by the looks. Not awful, but could be
better - were you using manual focus, or after a deliberate effect? AF
should have handled that easily..
- composition is a bit ordinary - maybe squatting down to his level
might have worked better?
- colour version has fairly strong blue/cyan cast.
And are you *sure* that flash fired? I can't see any eye catchlights,
or flash shadow.. So the effect is er.. very subtle! Non-existent, I
would venture to say!
Dudley Hanks
"Mark Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gpv9sh$453$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
Re: exposure comp., I had it boosted by 1 stop. I guess I'll have to go up
to +2 stops and see what happens there. Anything more than that, and I'll
have to go manual because +2 is the limit of the EC facility in the auto
modes.
Re: focus, I was using Live View and used the slower, contrast based
focusing method. I'm finding that this mode doesn't work all that well for
me; it keeps selecting strange places to focus on. I think I'll set it to
the quick focus method and see if that makes any difference, since I tend to
have a bit better luck when I just point and shoot without going into Live
View.
Re: composition, indeed, it was quite ordinary. GDB is looking for
pictures for the 2009 / 2010 calendar, and I'm just doing some test shots to
get exposure and focusing issue straightened out. While I was happy to get
Mich roughly where I wanted him, I agree with you a lower angle shot would
work better. But, I was curious how he'd look against a plain white
snowscape. It sounds like that idea isn't going to work.
Re: flash, the EXIF data says it fired, but I probably didn't have it set
high enough. Earlier in the day, I had done some test shots, inside, with
it and it seemed to give some nice catch lights on the lowest power setting,
at about the same distance I was from Mich. I'm guessing it's still a case
of not over-exposing enough to compensate for snow. The next time, I'll
either go with a higher setting, or use the 380ex which will work in ETTL
mode (the 540ez only works in manual).
The strong colour cast is interesting. I used Canon software to convert the
CR2 file to a colour JPG file, and this software is really crappy when it
comes to being usable with a screen reader. Accordingly, my daughter was
helping me quite a bit, and I'm thinking I might not have set something
properly, probably should have made sure it was using the daylight white
balance.
Oh, well, back to the drawing board...
Thanks for all the info, Mark, that helps quite a bit. For the calendar
submission, I'd like to get a lower angle shot, taken more head on. But,
GDB wants the harness to be clearly visible, so I'm not sure just how much
lower I can go and still get the harness handle in the shot.
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
> Re: exposure comp., I had it boosted by 1 stop.
But a stop is probably enough - in hindsight, 1.5 is probably a little
too much.
> Re: focus, I was using Live View and used the slower, contrast based
> focusing method. I'm finding that this mode doesn't work all that well for
> me; it keeps selecting strange places to focus on.
On the basis of that one and what you have just said, yes, I'd drop the
Live focusing, unless there are other advantages for the way you have to
work..
> Re: composition, indeed, it was quite ordinary. GDB is looking for
> pictures for the 2009 / 2010 calendar, and I'm just doing some test shots to
> get exposure and focusing issue straightened out. While I was happy to get
> Mich roughly where I wanted him, I agree with you a lower angle shot would
> work better. But, I was curious how he'd look against a plain white
> snowscape. It sounds like that idea isn't going to work.
Well, it could work, but there needs to be something to give it a bit of
life - facial expression, a brightly colored object.. Otherwise it
looks like you just snapped away to sell him on Ebay... (O:
It's a pity you couldn't use something a bit more arty, like the one on
the bus. That was a ripper.
> Re: flash, the EXIF data says it fired, but I probably didn't have it set
> high enough.
I'm not familiar with that equipment and whether the exif is always
right, but I'm surprised there seems to be no catchlight at all. Even
at low power there should be a little glint..
You might need to check your settings very carefully to ensure that the
camera/flash isn't overriding your desire for it to fire.
> The strong colour cast is interesting. I used Canon software to convert the
> CR2 file to a colour JPG file, and this software is really crappy when it
> comes to being usable with a screen reader. Accordingly, my daughter was
> helping me quite a bit, and I'm thinking I might not have set something
> properly, probably should have made sure it was using the daylight white
> balance.
I'm not the best one to be teaching you color, as I'm a (very mild)
protanope.. (O: But I'm pretty good with hue shifts, esp blues! And
the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
> Oh, well, back to the drawing board...
I can tell you that your work is improving in leaps and bounds (pun
intended), so keep it up. Same dog-channel, same dog-time..
cheers,
mt
Caesar Romano
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re In Full Uniform:
>What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
I would say you need more exposure by about +2 ev. It looks like the
snow is being placed in Zone-5 and IMO it needs to be in Zone-7.
Just curious: With all due respect and sympathy for your handicap, how
does a blind person frame a photo? For that matter, how do you read
this NG?
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
and can enjoy photography.
OK I checked dictionary definition:
1 a (1) : SIGHTLESS (2) : having less than 1/10 of normal vision in
the more efficient eye when refractive defects are fully corrected by
lenses
Allen
blind man who walked around the building and campus with what was about
a 40 inch stride. He was born with one eye undeveloped and with 20/400
vision in the other, but it rolled around almost uncontrolled in its
socket. I believe that if digital photography had been around back then
he probably would have tried it. I have great respect for Dudley and any
other severely handicapped person who will push beyond what should be
his/her expected limitations. Keep it up, Dudley.
Allen
Caesar Romano
Re Re: In Full Uniform:
> Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
>sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
>assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
>close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
>and can enjoy photography.
Thanks. I should have explained that the reason I was asking is that
the eye I like to put to the viewfinder has pretty poor (near sighted)
vision. I was hoping the OP was using some kind of visual aid that I
might find useful.
Dudley Hanks
"Caesar Romano" <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:m9d7s4d2vs9llm1lv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:27:36 -0400, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote
> Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>
>> Software can read messages out loud. Blind does not mean without
>>sight, but rather with out enough sight to function normally without
>>assistance. I was winging that description, but I believe it is
>>close. Many people who are legally blind do have some limited sight
>>and can enjoy photography.
>
The last stats I "saw" indicated that about 90% of "blind" people actually
have some sight. In most countries, the term "legally blind" simply means
that the individual has 10% or less of normal vision -- either acuity or
field. Hence, somebody with 20 /200 vision or worse would be "legally
blind," and somebody who has less than a 20 degree field would also be
"legally blind."
Accordingly, somebody with 20 / 20 vision, but with a field of 20 degrees
would be legally blind, but could function almost normally as a
photographer.
In my case, my acuity is such that it can no longer be measured; I see only
shapes and shadows in very contrasty situations. My field is only about 3
or 4 degrees. So, the end result is that I can only see extremes of light
and shade, in only a very small area. I am able to make out some light and
dark areas in the LCD display of the XSi, by scanning across the display, so
I can actually do a bit of limited composition (or, at least, I'm
experimenting with composing images that way). But, my best shots come out
of situations where I am aware of the physical layout of my surroundings,
the size of my subject, and the arrangement / layout of background objects.
My experience with hyperfocal shoots in action settings, back when I had
vision, enables me to frame such shots and get some semi decent results.
The biggest obstacle I have in such settings is finding a way to get my
camera to focus on my subject. In a number of cases, I can use the
hyperfocal technique to good advantage, assuming I can set the lens to
hyperfocal. There are a couple of techniques I've discovered, but nothing
so consistent I can rely on it in all settings.
But, constant practice is yielding some improved results. I'm hoping to put
together a small portfolio of some of my better shots and post them on-line
soon.
Note, I am not so crazy as to assume I'll be able to function as a
professional photographer; I simply love the art, and I want to see if I
can find ways to capture good images with virtually no sight. That's why my
mantra is: "Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; it's in the mind."
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
As has been pointed out in other responses, most "blind" people have some
sight. It's not so much what you have, but what you DO with what you
have...
In my case, I use a specialized computer application to verbalize the text
on my computer screen. There are several such programs on the market,
including the "Narrator" which is built into most versions of Windows.
Regarding the composition of my shots, a lot depends on what I'm shooting,
where I'm shooting it, and what the conditions are like.
In situations where there is a lot of contrast, as in this shot of Mich, I
am able to make out a fuzzy grey blur on a white background. I can't make
out eyes and ears, nor even legs and tail, just an amorphous blob of grey
which I tried to center in the viewfinder. Keep in mind that I cannot make
out the whole viewfinder without scanning back and forth, as well as up and
down, in order to place the subject where I want.
Thus, I work the edges of the display. I scan my eyes in towards the center
until I start to see the grey area which is my subject. When the distance
from the edge is roughly the same, or at least in the proportions I think I
need in order to place the subject where I want it, I take the shot.
Also, keep in mind that the shot needs to be focused. So, as I am working
the edges to compose the shot, I press the AE button on the XSi and try to
focus the shot. This hasn't been all that accurate, so I'm thinking I'll
change to the quick focus method and try that for a while.
Unfortunately, this scenario isn't ideal for my particular condition, since
I have an "easier" time when I have a light subject on a dark background, as
in a spotlit subject at a concert. In such cases, the procedure is the
same, but I am able to perform the various steps quite a bit quicker, and
more accurately.
When I take a shot, what I "see" is in no way the actual image the viewer
"sees." But, I often argue that such is the case for all artistic objects.
It's just that the gap is wider between myself and my viewers. Hence, I
need to know more about my audience's expectations, and they need to know
about my approach. I try to avoid the term "limitations," since I don't
feel limited -- I just function somewhat differently.
Up until now, I have been mainly doing test shots. A few have turned out,
most have not. But, My ratio of keepers is slowly getting better.
The feedback I get from this group, and others like it, is INVALUABLE. The
"sympathy factor" is difficult to get past when asking for feedback in a
face to face situation, so I rarely get useful info from people I am closely
acquainted with, doubly so since most do not have the same level of
experience and ability as the shooters who post here.
Having said all that, I'd like to go back to something you wrote, ie. the
"zones."
You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each zone
would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a latitude
of 7 zones. Is that correct?
Thanks for the info,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>
Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV? And, if so, could that
be why the snow is going grey? Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?
I wasn't using a UV filter for that shot, as I don't have a good one at the
moment. (Keep meaning to pick one up, just haven't gotten around to it.)
Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?
While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
setting.
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
>> the numbers seem to agree that the snow is rather blue/cyan.
>
> Just had a thought, Mark, could the hue be from UV?
(somebody?) Certainly UV (and IR can cause problems with some colours.
But I would hope that the metering and white balancing would be
relatively immune from out of visible spectrum stuff.
> And, if so, could that
> be why the snow is going grey?
As above, I don't know for sure, but would doubt it - it's not an issue
that seems to get much publicity.. Specular highlights, or back/front
lighting are usually what throws metering systems, imo. (Or being left
in spot metering mode, but that wouldn't apply here - the problem is the
wrong way around.)
> Would Photoshop do a good job of removing
> the hue? Or, would it be better to use a UV filter?
Yes, Photoshop. But then I'm known for having an intense dislike for
putting on extra bits of glass.. With a shot like that, I would simply
white balance it to a greyish piece of snow (eg grey point eyedropper in
curves), and then watch the other tones - in your case, perhaps get
someone to watch what happens..
> Perhaps, a polarizer would be a better choice?
Polarizers are the one filter I *do* use a lot.. However, in this case
I don't think it would help - they aren't much use at all in grey
skies.. Best used for shooting in the sun around midday, where you want
deep blue skies, where you wish to control the contrast in a strongly
sunlit shot, and anything with (non-metallic) reflections, eg river and
coast scenes.
However.. you do have to rotate the polariser to get the best effect -
that may cause you some issues. You could put a little dot/bump on the
pola, and then use your knowledge of where the light is coming from...
Let me know if you go down this path and I can elaborate. I've had a
fair bit of practice with using them.
> While I live in Edmonton, in the midst of a lot of snow, I've never shot a
> lot of pics in the white stuf, so definitely have a lot to learn in this
> setting.
And hereabouts it's the reverse - a good snowfall here would probably
mean the end of the world was nigh... Shorts and t-shirt, even in winter..
cheers,
mt
Caesar Romano
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each zone
>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a latitude
>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
>
>Thanks for the info,
>Dudley
Hello Dudley,
Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
exposure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
B&W images.
Best Regards,
C.R.
Dudley Hanks
Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is shifted
one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a little
blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be really
nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting in
bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
unnoticeable.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Thanks for the info, Mark. I'll ponder this for a while and try the shot
again this weekend.
BTW, after my three weeks in California, I really miss your warmer
climate...
Take Care,
Dudley
Vance
wrote:
> "Caesar Romano" <S...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>
> news:hq58s4lbeu13idkeu...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
Vance
Dudley Hanks
"Vance" <Vance...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e20b54-f3a5-478f...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Vance
Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.
I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display, but
we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to ISO
400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
would cost.
Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
Take Care,
Dudley
Vance
wrote:
> "Vance" <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Let me look into it, Dudley. The speech synthesizer chip only costs
around $24.00 or $25.00 U.S. I can probably modify an older light
meter in your face it with a microcontroller and write a program that
will convert the readings to information the voice generation chips
can use. How much it will cost, I don't know, but I'm awful band good
at doing a lot with very little. I'll see what I can find on the
surplus market.
The question will be how to make it the most usable for you. My gut
instinct is to get a cheap already calibrated and accurate analog
meter and go from there. I could design a light meter from scratch
(they're very simple), but that gets into the hassle of having to
calibrate it.
Digital camera ISO settings don't always equal handheld light meter
ISO settings. However, your two stop difference is a little out of
line. I would tend a suspect your daughter's metering technique. You
also mention maybe going to two stops over when shooting in snow.
With your camera I would try something like 1 2/3 stops for snow. I
noticed that the day was overcast with Mitch's picture, so I would
think that 1 2/3 stops would work under those circumstances because
you only seem to be up about one stop under exposed. On bright sunny
days, with a lot of snow, the "Sunny 16 Rule" is a good place to
start.
I'm sorry we didn't get together when you're out here getting
acquainted with Mitch, though I'm pretty sure you had a lot on your
plate.
In sum, give me about a week or so to look into things.
Regards,
Vance
Dudley Hanks
> light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
> you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
>
> Vance
>
> Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.
>
> I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
> daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display,
> but
> we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
>
> As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
> camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to
> ISO
> 400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
>
> I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
> would cost.
>
> Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Regards,
Vance
Once again, thanks a lot, Vance. I appreciate your help.
Yes, it's too bad we didn't get together in San Francisco. I only had a few
hours on the afternoons of two Sundays to meet with personal acquaintences
over the three weeks I was there. Given that we went from 6:00 am until
about 9:00 pm the rest of the time, it was a fairly intensive program. Two
students were sent home without dogs, and a third went through 2 changes
before finding the right guide. GDB's standards are incredibly high, but
the end result is worth the drain.
Still, I would have like to have heard your ideas about how to get better
pics...
Re: my light meter, I think you are right about the difference being due to
ineffective placement of the meter. We've worked a bit more, today, and the
difference is getting closer to 1 stop. I enjoy working with my kids --
it's a great family activity -- but it's just not the same as being able to
work out a scene myself...
Your idea really does sound great; just let me know if you need any input
from me. I think you have my e-mail address. If not, I can be reached at:
From a blind user's perspective, being able to hear the ISO speed, shutter
speed, aperture and mode are the main things. In the case of the meter I am
using now, the aperture reading is broken down into two parts, the main part
(IE. 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, etc) and a secondary (fractional) part that has to be
added onto the main part. The secondary part is like a multi-segmented
horseshoe that starts lighting up from left to right. The more sections
that light up, the closer the reading is to the next major aperture setting.
This is part of the problem with my daughter's translation, she either
forgets to add that part to the main reading, or else is unsure of how to
interpret it.
I'm not sure how you would get those two parts to mesh. But, my meter is
about 20 years old; the newer ones are probably more advanced and easier to
work with.
Anyway, I'll look forward to hearing whether or not you will be able to
figure something out.
Take Care,
Dudley
Vance
In order, I'm looking at:
1. Modifying a digital meter by reading the display multiplexer and
adding a control signal to determine whether
you are modifying the function, such as setting ISO, or you are taking
a reading. The feedback for changing the function would be the
function name and the numerical value. Since your Canon reads things
to 1/3 stop, I don't know if the voice output has to give more than a
whole F stop plus a 1/3 stop positive adjustment. Under some
circumstances, this will introduce a predictable one 3rd stop under
exposure.I think that's acceptable, but you may not.
2. Modifying an analog leader, but I would have to add circuitry to
convert the analog voltage to the digital value and add function
control logic. That would be a lot more clergy and it's not going to
be my first choice.
I'm gonna take my older Polaris meter apart tonight and see what's in
it. I've seen them used on eBay for between $40.00 and $60.00 U.S.
These are actually pretty good meters and provide flash, ambient and
reflected readings to one 10th of a stop. With
Anyway, I'm on the front and I will get back to you by e-mail.
Regards,
Vance
> photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com
>
> From a blind user's perspective, being able to hear the ISO speed, shutter
> speed, aperture and mode are the main things. In the case of the meter I am
> using now, the aperture reading is broken down into two parts, the main part
> (IE. 2.8, 3.5, 5.6, etc) and a secondary (fractional) part that has to be
> added onto the main part. The secondary part is like a multi-segmented
> horseshoe that starts lighting up from left to right. The more sections
> that light up, the closer the reading is to the next major aperture setting.
>
> This is part of the problem with my daughter's translation, she either
> forgets to add that part to the main reading, or else is unsure of how to
> interpret it.
>
> I'm not sure how you would get those two parts to mesh. But, my meter is
> about 20 years old; the newer ones are probably more advanced and easier to
> work with.
>
> Anyway, I'll look forward to hearing whether or not you will be able to
> figure something out.
>
> Take Care,
Vance
Get in touch with me by e-mail and maybe we can work out a shot for
the calendar. It would be a setup shot and maybe one of your kids can
be a model. An approach might be to take a cue from car advertising
and shoot from a 45 degree frontal angle. Shot from about 15 degrees
above Mitch's shoulder would be my first guess. I don't know if I
would include the whole human model in the image since the focus is
the dog, but it is a matter of interpretation.
Regards,
Vance
On Mar 19, 11:08 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
wrote:
> "Mark Thomas" <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gpv9sh$453$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dudley Hanks wrote:
> >> Went for a walk in the snow and decided to snap a pic of Mich in his
> >> uniform. When I got home, I printed the image, and was told it looked
> >> "photoshopped," very 2-dimensional -- like Mich was pasted onto a white
> >> background.
>
> >> What do you think? How is the exposure? Bright enough? Too bright?
>
> >> I used my old Canon Speedlite 540ez, in manual mode, on low, to fill in a
> >> bit. Did the flash hurt or help?
>
> >> Mich In Snow:
> >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw-small.jpg
> >> (BW, fast loading)
> >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-bw.jpg (BW,
> >> full size)
> >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour-smal...
> >> (colour, fast loading)
> >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow-colour.jpg
> >> (colour, full size)
> >>http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichInSnow.cr2 (Canon
> >> RAW)
>
> >> BTW, for those who want to contribute to my artistic addiction, you can
> >> now go to PayPal and transfer funds to either:
> >> photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com