39mp underwater

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Paul,

 

Well said! I concur.

 

For the final record. Here is my subjective opinion:

 

35mm dslr's should give better results in super macro

35mm at this point only offers fish eye

35mm has more lens options by far

35mm is less expensive but more if you get all available lens options

35mm by far is more popular with less limitations

 

H3d offers an excellent wide angle lens 28mm (22mm equivilant in 35mm format)

H3d offers and excellent lens for fish portraits (80mm)

H3d offers a good mid-macro lens option (120mm macro)

H3d is upgradeable by way of firmware (e.g. iso to 800)

H3d offers high quality large format printing up to 5'x8'

H3d offers simply stunning overall image quality in color and detail

A specialized tool and not practical for a hobbyist.

 

For the cropping comparison request, I just wanted to see what some people were talking about. Different formats yield different results, yes. This is what I wanted to see. Anyway, enough comparing formats. I just hope you guys can help me improve on what I have as I also enjoy images posted with the 35mm format. Can anyone direct me to an image 100% cropped of a critter that is 8x10 @ 72 dpi. This wesite can handle this file size

 

All the best,

Troy

[rodriguezfelix 0]

I´m still thinking after all the jibbiddy jabbadda about technicism on diferent formats, that an image worth more than 1000 words...

 

Troy, get on that boat of yours and bring us back some sunballs and sunrays!!! and keep posting images, don´t stop so soon...

 

P.S.: is that boat available to any wetpixeler going for the bahamas??? hehehehe...

Edited October 30, 2007 by rodriguezfelix

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Rod,

 

Yes! Just make sure all tech bla bla is not on board and you are ready to have some fun. Better yet, a couple of you and including Dan and of course Graig(up to 8 people) come on down with a group rate or something and bring your gear. There is an affordable eco-style motel 1 mile from my house ORANGE HILL I have a home theater with a 1920 x 1080p Optoma set up to my computer to view on a 10 foot projector screen and some theater seating. We can do a quick edit and show our work. 35mm and mf and all. The ball is in Wetpixel's members court. That would be awesome. Andros caves, Stuart's sharks, wrecks, walls and nite dives. I think we should all do this more often so when we rag on each other all readers will know ther's no tension because we would have met one another.

 

Anyway, ther's the invite,

Troy Aitken,

Aitken Imaging

Nassau,

Bahamas

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello everyone,

 

I think this link will work for flikr. This is a larger size of a mid-macro shot I did on my first photo nite dive. I hope to improve as time goes by.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16936879@N07/?saved=1

 

Troy Aitken

[Undertow 31]

I just want to say thank you, Troy, for posting your initial experiences with this unique UW rig and I hope to see more pics soon.

 

I've been following this thread loosely and know none of this tech stuff, but I think Troy's getting unduely bashed here by trying something different and relating it to us. I don't recall him trying to convince people that MF UW is 'superior' and pixel picking b/w his hassy and a 1Ds3 seems to be beating around the bush. 39mp certainly could make some big prints though!

 

Dan, however, seems a little hung up on the technical stuff - his posts were going over my head and I paid little attention to them. Personally, I like taking pictures and i know Troy is keen to take some more (once this irritating tropical storm passes...) and I'd love to see them. Cheers,

 

Chris

 

btw, I did really like the look of those shark shots - IMHO they definitely seemed to have that 'smooth tonality', but that's just me on my puny 15" lcd screen...

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Chris,

 

Thank you,

Those shark shots were not taken under good conditions. I think the camera performed well considering. Some days it is just unbelievably clear and blue and I can't wait to see what the camera will do then.

 

Chris said-

 

Dan, however, seems a little hung up on the technical stuff - his posts were going over my head and I paid little attention to them. Personally, I like taking pictures and i know Troy is keen to take some more (once this irritating tropical storm passes...) and I'd love to see them. Cheers,

 

Troy's response-

 

I'm sure there was no pun intended being that there is a literal storm coming. Good humor, we need more of that.

 

Chris

[Islandbound 1]

Troy,

 

Like Chris said, I too have been following this thread loosely and appreciate your posting the photos for us to view. They are a fantastic window to your local area and I appreciate what you have done!

 

Of all the group I am the most limited in my experience and equipment and take only pictures for my memory and not for commercial purposes like many others here. Having said that I can recognize what I like and the WA pictures you posted of the sharks are beautiful to look at. As a non-photographer I look at each and every picture I see here on Wetpixel to gain ideas on exposure, composition, subject matter etc so images posted by other people are what make this site so educational and entertaining, keep it up!

 

JW

[Guest Dan Schwartz]

Troy,

 

I looked at the EXIF metadata from the shot you posted on Flickr, and I'm puzzled on a couple items, which I highlighted...

 

Bits per Sample: 8, 8, 8

Compression: JPEG

Photometric Interpretation: 2

Image Description: Nite Dive Oct 28 2007 0011

Orientation: Horizontal (normal)

Samples per Pixel: 3

X-Resolution: 72 dpi

Y-Resolution: 72 dpi

Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows

Date and Time: 2007:10:30 17:45:16

Exposure Program: Manual

Date and Time (Original): 2007:10:27 22:34:44

Date and Time (Digitized): 2007:10:27 22:34:44

Shutter Speed: 934931740/134217728

Metering Mode: Center Weighted Average

Color Space: sRGB

Caption/Abstract: Nite Dive Oct 28 2007 0011

Date Created: 20071028

Tag::IPTC::0x0238: 210652+0000

Image Width: 3375 pixels

Image Height: 2525 pixels

 

Was the file size you uploaded 3375 x 2525 pixels (and the website downsized it), or did you have a reduced capture set on your camera?

 

Are you using Hasselblad's Phocus software for your raw conversion; or are you using ACR? The metadata tag is a bit confusing.

 

Also, as a footnote (and without getting too much into technical minutae), may I suggest you convert your RAW files to the Adobe RGB color space, instead of sRGB.

 

Hello everyone,

 

I think this link will work for flikr. This is a larger size of a mid-macro shot I did on my first photo nite dive. I hope to improve as time goes by.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16936879@N07/?saved=1

 

Troy Aitken

Edited October 31, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[loftus 42]

There was a discussion here

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21269

 

about using sRGB for web and not Adobe RGB

[Guest Dan Schwartz]

Thanks for the URL to the thread on how the different browsers render tagged and untagged images.

 

Given the wide gamut many UW images have, this is indeed quite handy to know.

 

There was a discussion here

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21269

 

about using sRGB for web and not Adobe RGB

[Troy Aitken 0]

Troy,

 

I looked at the EXIF metadata from the shot you posted on Flickr, and I'm puzzled on a couple items, which I highlighted...

 

Bits per Sample: 8, 8, 8

Compression: JPEG

Photometric Interpretation: 2

Image Description: Nite Dive Oct 28 2007 0011

Orientation: Horizontal (normal)

Samples per Pixel: 3

X-Resolution: 72 dpi

Y-Resolution: 72 dpi

Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows

Date and Time: 2007:10:30 17:45:16

Exposure Program: Manual

Date and Time (Original): 2007:10:27 22:34:44

Date and Time (Digitized): 2007:10:27 22:34:44

Shutter Speed: 934931740/134217728

Metering Mode: Center Weighted Average

Color Space: sRGB

Caption/Abstract: Nite Dive Oct 28 2007 0011

Date Created: 20071028

Tag::IPTC::0x0238: 210652+0000

Image Width: 3375 pixels

Image Height: 2525 pixels

 

Was the file size you uploaded 3375 x 2525 pixels (and the website downsized it), or did you have a reduced capture set on your camera?

 

Are you using Hasselblad's Phocus software for your raw conversion; or are you using ACR? The metadata tag is a bit confusing.

 

Also, as a footnote (and without getting too much into technical minutae), may I suggest you convert your RAW files to the Adobe RGB color space, instead of sRGB.

 

Good Morning Dan,

 

I think flikr is doing something with the file. When you try to save it flikr reduces the file size. If you try to enlarge it while still in flikr its the right size. Some of the info is from flikr and the file was down rezed in post. Is the Beta version of Phocus available now? I use Flexcolor 4.81. Flikr allows free a file size up to 5mb. My file was 4.67mb downsized from 228mb. There might be a little softening due to size reduction.

 

I hope this helps,

Troy

 

 

 

I use an Eizo high end graphics monitor that displays the true RGB 1998 color space and this is the profile we use to print in 16bit color mode when possible.

[Guest Dan Schwartz]

Troy, if you scroll up, you'll see I crossed out my reference to posting files to display on a web browser in the Adobe RGB color space.

 

If you're printing in 16 bit depth, then that means you have an Epson printer with the Mac drivers.

 

Depending on the job, I either convert the file directly to the color gamut of the output device in Photoshop (usually if I'm using an RGB film recorder or RGB laser/LED photo printer (Chromira, Lambda, etc...)); or launch a second window to preview what it looks like when dealing with files destined for CMYK printing.

 

My suggestion, as this wanders further off the topic of taking your Hassy under the sea, is to simply rent cheap web hosting space (I use GoDaddy.com @$3.95/month), and generate the web gallery in Photoshop under the Automation menu.

 

Stay safe as Noel washes down Nassau!

 

Good Morning Dan,

 

I think flikr is doing something with the file. When you try to save it flikr reduces the file size. If you try to enlarge it while still in flikr its the right size. Some of the info is from flikr and the file was down rezed in post. Is the Beta version of Phocus available now? I use Flexcolor 4.81. Flikr allows free a file size up to 5mb. My file was 4.67mb downsized from 228mb. There might be a little softening due to size reduction.

 

I hope this helps,

Troy

I use an Eizo high end graphics monitor that displays the true RGB 1998 color space and this is the profile we use to print in 16bit color mode when possible.

[echeng 0]

So Dan, what if someone had read your advice about converting to AdobeRGB without someone else having posted a correction?

 

Again, I recommend only giving advice when you are fairly certain what you have to say is backed up by fact or by tried 'n true practices.

 

Let's get back on topic here. Medium-format, underwater! I'm glad the thread has started to become friendly.

[craig 0]

Given the wide gamut many UW images have, this is indeed quite handy to know.

Can you provide evidence in support of that claim, Dan? In what way is the "wide gamut of many UW images" a given?

[Guest Dan Schwartz]

Scroll through the galleries of various photographers here.

 

Look at the examples in the comparison thread.

 

Work in a commercial photo lab when UW jobs get run.

 

Can you provide evidence in support of that claim, Dan? In what way is the "wide gamut of many UW images" a given?

[craig 0]

Troy, I am toning it down. I address each wild, unsubstantiated claim as it comes up. You may not appreciate that kind of "toning it down" but maybe you should be prepared to provide sound arguments for your assertions before making them. It does not further the cause of MF to make unsubstantiated claims.

 

All of us have interest in seeing what this rig can do underwater, but so far we haven't seen much. Ridiculous praise over unremarkable samples doesn't further the cause of your format. We're too familiar with what other cameras can do for that. You have yet to post anything that demonstrates any technical value of the H3D, not a single 100% crop nor a single corner, you don't provide adequate technical information on what you do post, and you haven't shown anything of subjective value that would get the attention of an experienced photographer. It will be hard with your approach to earn the respect of either gearheads or photographers; you just aren't showing anything that can't be done already.

 

I am intrigued by the combination of low ISO, 16 ADCs, and fast shutter sync for sunballs. It's too bad that your wide angle lens isn't particularly wide. Still, sunballs are what I want to see, and your local dive conditions should be ideal for that. As more than one photo pro has said here, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to consider MF digital underwater. It would seem to me that you would want to show something that plays uniquely into the strengths of your rig if you wish to demonstrate something compelling. Otherwise, you will need to demonstrate that your optics aren't neutralizing any benefit you get from the bigger sensor, since all you have left is your claim that the H3D is suitable for big prints. I don't accept your big print claims as fact since we haven't seen evidence that your port system can outperform a 1Ds2 solution. A camera body, be it an H3D or 1Ds2 or D80, cannot be used to make prints at all; you have to have a complete solution.

[craig 0]

Scroll through the galleries of various photographers here.

 

Look at the examples in the comparison thread.

 

Work in a commercial photo lab when UW jobs get run.

Dan, giving me busy work to do is no argument in support of your claim, and looking at web images can't possibly demonstrate wide gamut using browsers that don't support tagged images. The comparison images thread you quoted has nothing to do with wide gamut; all it demonstrates are problems with color space support. Do you know what wide gamut is, Dan?

 

For those interested in color spaces, here is an article. The article explains that AdobeRGB and sRGB differ only in the selection of the green primary. Because of that, there is very little difference in gamut between the two except in the greens. That is not true for ProPhotoRGB, except that Dan just got through recommending AdobeRGB for underwater processing so I'm mentioning it here. I don't use AdobeRGB personally, I use ProPhoto. ProPhoto is wide enough to contain the output of a DSLR sensor, AdobeRGB is not.

 

Note that the macro shot in the comparison thread does not contain greens as a meaningful color (just like most underwater images). In fact, it contains no out-of-gamut colors at all for sRGB since it is posted on the web!

 

Dan, once you do shoot some underwater images, I suggest that you analyze the results to determine just how wide your typical gamut is. The results might surprise you. Meanwhile, please don't make specious claims.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I have not contributed to this thread in a while, but I have been reading some of it. It seems to me that it will be hard to reach a conclusion.

 

I think that everyone would accept that top digital back on MF will out perform (in terms of IQ) a 35mm or APS-C DSLR in studio conditions.

 

Where we get stuck is whether this advantage can be realised underwater where conditions are much less controllable, subjects less cooperative and the conditions require quite unusual lenses, which in turn require specific port setups. My Hasselblad has an Ivanoff corector port (a single piece of glass that weights about 1kg/2lb) to get the best performance out of the SWC lens underwater.

 

I believe that the achievable image quality could be proved online - by posting 100% crops, corner sharpness and showing images of familiar underwater subjects so we can all judge how the MF files compare to the more commonly seen underwater images taken with 35mm or APS-C cameras. Of course the difference might be easier to see in a large print - but we don't have that luxury - and 100% crops will prove a lot.

 

What is very difficult to judge is the useability of the system. Does it allow you to get the most from an oppurtunity, or do factors like housing ergonomics, poor UW autofocus, lack of depth of field etc etc mean that the best oppurtunities slip through the photographers fingers. I don't know how this could be proved online - I think you'd have to try and get used to a system for yourself.

 

It is impossible to judge from someone elses photos and their standards and expectations may be different from your own. Many people shoot the same camera as me underwater. Some of their results would convince me I have the perfect system, while others would have me trading in ASAP.

 

As someone who has a MF underwater system (albeit a 2 1/4 inch film one), I remain unconvinced that the system has much benefit outside the very controlled conditions of static macro photography or set-up wide angle. I think such a camera could be fantastic in places like Lembeh, in the pool or on shark feeds. But not for everyday UW shooting. I guess it is a case of choosing the right tool for the job.

 

Alex

[Paul Kay 62]

I guess it is a case of choosing the right tool for the job.

Alex

 

Alex, whilst you've hit the nail squarely on the head can I suggest that there seem to be two threads here. One is trying to compare absolute IQ on a pixel vs. pixel basis, and the other is trying to compare in-water abilities.

 

IMHO the first is something of an irrelevance - the whole point about different formats is that they use different lenses to do somewhat similar - but not identical - jobs and as such you simply cannot compare the pixel level IQ because apart from any other consideration there are lens design parameters and physical factors which mean that the image laid down on the sensor has different characteristics - even assuming identical sensor characteristics. 100% crops will I suspect be totally unconclusive! If, as you point out, a MF digital back can outperform smaller formats in a studio, then it stands to reason that it will outperform them underwater, but.....

 

You need to be able to define image quality (IQ) and as has been already pointed out in the thread, different formats have differing strengths and weaknesses. The components providing IQ in a super macro shot are different from those in an ethereal wide-angle shot. Where one camera system/format can deliver these better for one type of shot, another format may deliver best for a different sort of image. IQ is not, I would say, a fixed concept, but a variable which changes with subject matter. I don't think that underwater changes this - there are different subjects which can be shot using different techniques, hence variable IQ requirements.

 

I would fully agree that ergonomics and controllability will play a big part in the real world usability of any camera system - but I have to say that my last MF land camera (the Contax 645) was very close to a 35mm SLR in is handling, and when using flash or fill-flash yielded extremely high quality results even hand held - it was though more predictable and capable when used on a tripod, so whilst it was more at home in 'controlled' conditions, it could certainly be used in the field although care was needed.

 

Lastl, a comment. Your SWC runs a Biogon lens which was designed a very long time ago (~50 years) - but what would you say about IQ it produces behind the Ivanoff corrector???

[Guest Dan Schwartz]

Alex,

 

As someone who has (all but) thrown in the towel on housing my Mamiya 645AFd system, I've found your comments to be particularly helpful. Before I stick a fork in the project, though, I'd like to ask a couple more questions...

 

My questions:

 

1) When you talk about static macro, about what percentage of your macro shots fall into this category?

 

2) When you talk about Lembeh, what are these conditions? Are they similar to Grand Cayman?

 

Thanks for your guidance!

 

(cut)

As someone who has a MF underwater system (albeit a 2 1/4 inch film one), I remain unconvinced that the system has much benefit outside the very controlled conditions of static macro photography or set-up wide angle. I think such a camera could be fantastic in places like Lembeh, in the pool or on shark feeds. But not for everyday UW shooting. I guess it is a case of choosing the right tool for the job.

 

Alex

[Alex_Mustard 0]

2) When you talk about Lembeh, what are these conditions? Are they similar to Grand Cayman?

 

Actually I would consider those as two extremes! Lembeh is a famous muck diving spot in Indonesia that is particularly popular with underwater photographers. This is partly because there are many fantastic subjects for macro underwater photography and partly because most of these subjects don't move and are easy to photograph. Most of the critters are between the size of your fist and the size of your thumbnail.

 

Alex

[craig 0]

IMHO the first is something of an irrelevance - the whole point about different formats is that they use different lenses to do somewhat similar - but not identical - jobs and as such you simply cannot compare the pixel level IQ because apart from any other consideration there are lens design parameters and physical factors which mean that the image laid down on the sensor has different characteristics - even assuming identical sensor characteristics. 100% crops will I suspect be totally unconclusive! If, as you point out, a MF digital back can outperform smaller formats in a studio, then it stands to reason that it will outperform them underwater, but.....

There are claims being made here that MF is capable of far greater enlargements than 35mm. In fact, the enlargement capability that's implied is much greater than the extra sensor size or pixel count would suggest. If this were so, then there would have to be undeniable per-pixel IQ benefits to the larger format. It can't be any other way. If 100% crops are inconclusive, then claims of MF IQ superiority are unsubstantiated.

 

Now, if the comparison becomes one of like print size, then 100% crops don't have to tell any particular IQ story. MF users never make the comparison this way, though, and you can look no further than the discussion on MF aperture limits to see how pervasive this is. If we were comparing like enlargements, an H3D could (and should) be stopped down further than f/16. The fact that it isn't is proof that per-pixel sharpness is being maintained.

 

Ultimately, you have to put a stake in the ground. If you are going to talk about sensor sizes, pixel counts, and enlargement capabilities, then you should expect per-pixel performance to matter. People like to attribute desirable qualities to larger formats, but if those qualities exist then we can measure them. The first step to that is to standardize the manner in which we compare. There is always resistance to that among advocates of these larger systems.

 

Regarding the use of different lenses, I believe that's more to the point. Different systems have unique components other than just sensors. I wonder how much different the lenses are when you only consider macro, though.

 

I would add, finally, that I've read claims that MF digital offers dynamic range benefits over 35mm beyond ADC bit depth and lens design because their bodies surpress stray light better. I don't know if that is really true, but it certainly could be. I don't believe that such a design feature necessarily translates into better images all of the time, but it is another example of how it's the complete system that matters.

 

MF advocates remind me of audiophiles, and the two types of products are similar in a lot of ways. There's enough technical merit to justify superior performance objectively, but there's also a lot of mythical benefits. An MF shooter may like the way a certain lens performs just as an audiophile may like the way a certain amplifier sounds, but just because they like it doesn't mean it's objectively better. Like audiophiles, some photographers just don't like the idea of these differences being quantified. I'm not interested personally in the Tice clocks of underwater photography.

[Paul Kay 62]

OK Craig.

 

If you feel like taking it, here's a challenge for you.

 

DEFINE Image Quality! Remembering, of course, that you cannot seperate a format from its lenses! Is it merely a function of how large a print you can make from a given format? Is it about dynamic range? Or is it a far more complex interaction of projected image and sensor characteristics. What figures would you use and where would you set the levels of poor, acceptable and good? I'd say that this is a tricky one, but do give it a go.

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Craig,

 

I thought we cleared this up but, here we go again hopefully for the last time. You are really discouraging me from posting any images in the near future.

 

Craig said-

 

 

Troy, I am toning it down. I address each wild, unsubstantiated claim as it comes up. You may not appreciate that kind of "toning it down" but maybe you should be prepared to provide sound arguments for your assertions before making them. It does not further the cause of MF to make unsubstantiated claims.

 

Your tone I was referring to was being disrespectful and putting others down of whom you probably don't even know. It's one thing to disagree and correct others contructively to encourage everyone to be willing to participate so we all can learn new things.But it's another to put others down and call it "toning it down". Over and over I seem to be trying to satisfy you that my digital mf set is new and new things will be discoverd about it. There are variables that need to be added to what you know in your head. Only experience can teach and show this. This is what I am willing to do. All I am trying to do is share my images and experiences about my set up. You seem to be bent on misrepresenting what I have posted and trying to push this thread towards the notion that I am trying to prove the mf format to be better than the 35mm format. I am not making these assumptions. I am hoping to share for everyone to comment on the findings from using this set up. Then as things progress we can be more objective in the findings.

 

Craig said-

 

All of us have interest in seeing what this rig can do underwater, but so far we haven't seen much. Ridiculous praise over unremarkable samples doesn't further the cause of your format. We're too familiar with what other cameras can do for that. You have yet to post anything that demonstrates any technical value of the H3D, not a single 100% crop nor a single corner, you don't provide adequate technical information on what you do post, and you haven't shown anything of subjective value that would get the attention of an experienced photographer. It will be hard with your approach to earn the respect of either gearheads or photographers; you just aren't showing anything that can't be done already.

 

Troy's response-

 

Of course, no one has seen much. Many divers with 35mm formats have been shooting for a number of years and should have alot to say and images to post. But to draw judgemental conclusions so quickly at someone who has only had this set up for I month with 4 dives is unfortunate. You want tech specs go to hasselbladusa, better yet call them. If you are so familiar with what other cameras can do, then post some of your own work to show than some of your knowledge has dropped down into your hands for you to actually do. The crop of the juvy flamingo tongue was 100% cropped. At least that was a start. Tech info was not why I started this thread. Any person with Google can spend a few hours and read up on what I have not mentioned and spew it out like they designed the equipment. But there is little practical info on the H3D u/w. If you can allow me, I will be more than glad to share and answer questions as best as I can from what I find out. I will suspect within a year of practice and learning the equipment everything will improve and I look to aim to have a Gallery of images to display.

 

Craig said-

 

I am intrigued by the combination of low ISO, 16 ADCs, and fast shutter sync for sunballs. It's too bad that your wide angle lens isn't particularly wide. Still, sunballs are what I want to see, and your local dive conditions should be ideal for that. As more than one photo pro has said here, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to consider MF digital underwater. It would seem to me that you would want to show something that plays uniquely into the strengths of your rig if you wish to demonstrate something compelling. Otherwise, you will need to demonstrate that your optics aren't neutralizing any benefit you get from the bigger sensor, since all you have left is your claim that the H3D is suitable for big prints. I don't accept your big print claims as fact since we haven't seen evidence that your port system can outperform a 1Ds2 solution. A camera body, be it an H3D or 1Ds2 or D80, cannot be used to make prints at all; you have to have a complete solution.

 

 

Troy Response-

 

An image that is compelling can be from a 35mm or mf. Remember what I said " to have a good set up is good, to know how to anticipate the shot is better but to be at the right place at the right time with the right settings is best". Maybe that time has not come yet but I,m believing it will and it will be a "magical" moment.

 

 

In conclusion, I sincerely would be intersted in seeing some of your work.

 

Please lets move forward,

Troy Aitken.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[Paul Kay 62]

Troy

 

Don't be discouraged! Forums are about learning and finding things out but aren't always the easiest of place to express oneself in ways that come across just as intended. Discussing complex issues in brief notes is difficult at the best of times, but do post images. I for one am interested to see how you find handling the housed MF and images from it will give a good idea - especially if you comment about your own satisfaction level with the image you post. I don't post many images, but if I do I allow people to look at the image as a whole - if they don't want to accept my comments about, well its a free ..... er, world I suppose! Bottom line is that if I like one of my own images then I'm satisfied, if others do then its bonus time, but assessing IQ (whatever that is) from web postings is very, very difficult.