dave_reichert1

Keynote. It's free, and it's already on your computer.

Frankly, I have no interest in mirrorless. Looking at a pre-rendered version of the scene in front of me on a tiny TV screen has no appeal. As long as they keep making DSLRs with optical viewfinders, I'll be happy.

Believe me, Andrew. I have no interest in printing "black only" for my regular photography. If it were available though, I could think of a few things I'd like to experiment with...

Matt Laur: "Even a decent prosumer grade printer like the Epson 3880 will switch to B&W inksets when you tell it to - no color pigments are involved." I use a 3880, and as far as I know, that option isn't available in the Epson driver, except for Draft quality on plain paper. If it is, I'd like to know where to find it.

<p>Do a nozzle check. It looks like your black ink is clogged.</p>

Ask Lenny Kravitz.

<p>A Ratoc FR1SX (Firewire-SCSI) or a Ratoc U2SCX (USB-SCSI) would fit the bill. I'm familiar with the FR1SX—I've used it for years with no problems on a Mac. <br> Unfortunately, both of these items have been discontinued, and they're going for ridiculously high prices on eBay. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The piss poor focusing screen on my D800 is no comparison to the P screens on my F2 and F4. Since I've never been a fan of tripods or live view, my manual focus Nikkors get less use than I'd like, and certainly less than they desrve these days.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Mac downloads are here:<br> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?platform=Macintosh&product=113</p> <p>Windoze downloads are here:<br> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=113&platform=Windows</p> <p>GIYF</p>

<div></div>

<p>Bill - A friendly tip — there's no need to put red dye into the hummingbird nectar. One part cane sugar to four parts water is all they need. It's probably not harmful — it's just not necessary. </p> <p>We've been feeding the hummers for the past seventeen seasons, and we're averaging about 240 pounds of sugar per season. We never bothered with the dye. You might find this link interesting. http://wildbirdsunlimited.typepad.com/the_zen_birdfeeder/2010/07/top-5-reasons-to-not-use-red-hummingbird-nectar.html</p>

<p>I've always used a three or four inch length of Dymo label tape. Never had a problem.</p>

We're already halfway through Shark Week and I haven't seen a post about it yet, so here you are. Pictures of sharks that make you smile...<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Who owns the copyrights for photos taken when an animal trips the shutter on an unmanned game camera?<br> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140125-snow-leopard-pakistan-animals-science-world-endangered-species/</p>

<p>Thank you, Fred. <br> One more before I sign out...</p><div></div>

<p>Julie, I'm seeing a lot of photographs posted in this thread that contain only one, or very few graphic elements, and apparently, you're equating that with minimal "content". I get your point, but I think you might be using a word that carries more weight than you intend. I see content as something apart from (the representation of) objects within a frame. </p> <p>You brought poetry into the discussion. If the photograph were a poem, then the objects depicted would be words, and the content would be expressed in the arrangement or juxtaposition of those objects.</p> <p>I think we can all agree that graphically simple photos can and often do have more "content" than many graphically complex compositions. Elements like a single leaf, a feather, a shaft of light, a lone tree on a ridge can sometimes, depending on their context and the viewer's state of mind, evoke thoughts, emotions, or ideas that are far more focused, direct, and visceral than those that are buried in a more densely composed image.</p><div></div>

<p>Laura - I'll see your feather and raise you half a bird.</p><div></div>

<p>I enjoy photos with a minimal number of compositional elements, as opposed to minimal content. Distilling a composition down to a few essential elements is often more difficult than successfully arranging a plethora of elements within the frame. This is one of my current favorites.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>