markci

As for Lisa's sentiments, I can't agree. I rarely use filters, but I do use Velvia. Does that make me dishonest? Can you specify the emulsion that gives an "honest" representation of a scene? For prints, is there a particular enlarger filtration I'm required to use to get the Lisa-certified color balance? There are a lot of things other than using filters on the taking lens that can change the color balance, and really no such thing as accurate color reproduction.

I'd say this (being wherever in suboptimal lighting conditions) is more the rule than the exception, by a wide margin.

Yes, I'm sure one day humans and animals will join hands and paws and sing "Kumbaya" 'till the end of time. They'll thank us for enriching their life's experiences so. At least, the few we haven't exterminated will.

As Bob says, the problem isn't one person's interaction with animals. It's the cumulative effect. Humans are rightfully perceived as likely predators by most animals. The problem is that, due to our technology, we've become several orders of magnitude more numerous than any predator of our size in the history of life on this planet. Therefore, arguments about whether we're animals or a part of nature or whatever are really beside the point. 5 billion tigers or wolves or whatever roaming the planet would cause a huge disruption among other wildlife, even if they ate only at McDonalds.

Bob, interesting data. Still, I'm wondering how much the illumination level of the north sky varies with the altitude of the sun. That could be a very different answer.

Zack,<P>The varying distance of the earth from the sun has nothing to do with the change of seasons, and thus your eccentricity calculations are completely beside the point. Seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth's axis with respect to it's orbital plane. In spring and summer the sun is much higher in the sky (in the North America) than it is in fall and winter, so atmospheric attenuation can't by any means be assumed to be negligible.

Ditto Bob's comments about Nikon and MF. I've made the switch to Canon now, but prices for big EOS glass are pretty daunting. If I ever needed a big telephoto I'd have to seriously consider saving several thousand dollars by going with a used manual-focus Nikkor.<P>As far as what works with what when mixing AF and MF Nikon, essentially everything works except some stuff you probably don't really need anyway, like matrix metering, program and shutter-priority modes when using MF lenses on AF bodies. Even those work with the F4, or when you use an AI-P manual lens (which would have the AF electronics).

Hmmm...you couldn't be talking about Juanita Bay/Forbes Creek in Kirkland, WA, could you? I certainly have to wonder what kind of idiots are running things in this town. You didn't even mention the new fire station construction. I'm sure that'll have a wonderful environmental impact.

The idea that color can't be art is just stupid. Black and white is simply a different medium, better suited to some things and less suited to others. I do think that a lot of nature photography doesn't really qualify as art, though. It involves skill and aesthetics, but producing art really isn't the intention a lot of the time.

It's pretty, but when I look at it my eye just hunts around trying to find something that's in focus. The closest and most prominent leaves are a blur. There seem to be a scattered handful that are at the right distance to be in focus, but basically it's an exercise in frustration.