gmh2

<p>Robin,<br>

No takers yet, are you interested? Make me an offer!<br>

Thanks George</p>

<p>thank you Dieter. I listed this camera and lenses on this site. You have probably seen it. No responses as yet. Any suggestions??</p>

<p>Sorry for the confusion and thank you Douglas Herr you hit them all on the mark. I don't know how to determine what the lens cam configuration is. How is that done. Simple or complex? Also would you recommend selling on ebay or somewhere else?? Many thanks to all for your responses. George</p>

<p>Does anyone know what this is worth. It is in good condition with 5 lenses from wide angle to to 180 including flash and case. Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

Once again eyeworks wishes to make public comments and keep his identity a secret. Interesting. Secondly "the person" continues to rant about my response to him regarding a categorization issue regarding one of my photos. "This person" has not a clue whether the photos I shoot are editorial in nature or fashion in nature. The photo itself is not evidence in and of itself to make such a determination, yet "this person" seems to assert that "it" has a "VERY" clear understanding of what is news and what is not. Moreover it becomes somewhat distressing to listen to "this person" go on and on about my "turgid spin" of the facts. This brings to mind what a good friend once said to me "he likes to use those quarter words with a nickle mind". Eyeworks continues to ignore one of Websters definitions of the word editorial "of, relating to, or constituting the literary contents of a publication" and rather try to impress everyone with his credentials and vocabulary. Thank you very much MR. MS. EYEWORKS for your assesment. I appreciate constructive comments regarding my photography, but leave the categorization to me.

Eyeworks photo first of all is not representing the facts:

1. I sent this anonymous person an email explaining that I did not miscatergorize my photo. That indeed my photo should be in

editorial/news rather than fashion because this photo was taken "of, relating to, or constituting the literary contents of a publication". I also

mentioned that the designer would probably not appreciate his comments regarding the composition of the dresses. As a response eyeworks photo

sent me back a rather abusive email containing a dictionary definition of the word "criticize" along with a short history of eyeworks salient career

accomplishments. I think this person is a legend in his own mind. He also informed me not to email him any further, which I have and will refrain

from doing. Interestingly enough eyeworks then posted an additional comment on my photo and later in another public forum further extorting the

facts and attempting to denigrate, it seems, my character. It seems eyeworks wishes everyone to believe that I cannot take critical comment. Far

from the truth! He (I assume it's a he) wishes to dismiss the true issue of categorization and make believe that I don't approve of his critique of my

photo, which incidentally is not in question.

2. It also seems rather interesting to me that this person wants to make a public forum of my categorization issue, but it, he, she

what-ever eyeworks photo is chooses to keep his, her identity a secret. My name is made public.

Can someone please explain the technical side and practical side of

downloading images via Nikon view using NEF RAW files, selecting the

10 meg option when moving into photoshop? Will I be able to blow

these images up to 24 x 36 or larger using the 10 meg option as

opposed to deselecting this option? Pros? Cons? Explanations?