KevinFRK

Canon's DPP4 starts displaying RAW files from Canon Camera's processed as if by the Canon camera, as a feature, for precisely that reason: a good starting point.

Even if it didn't, the "ideal" recipe for displaying a RAW file as a JPG is probably relatively straightforward (how to form the luminance histograms, level of noise reduction & sharpening, etc.) and likely to give what appears to be the same results. I'd expect you'd only usually spot this with extreme pixel peeping. If the process was not straightforward, it would slow displaying the JPG in camera, and thus slow down the whole photography experience, so that's not going to happen!

As an alternative to buying your own printer, if you can cope with the delay, there's many firms out there that will do really nice prints from digital photos at surprisingly low costs, delivered pretty fast.

Give how much I've wasted on unused colours of ink and printers just breaking entirely, that is how I now do the few photos I want hard copies of.

In passing, if taking shots to record precise colours (you mention glazes), I hope you've worked out you want some known colour reference cards or the like in every shot - nothing, whether digital or film, is going to give you accurate colours or luminance without post-processing.

Drat!

Fun photo and to me a really satisfying composition of elements!

Gadwalls are apparently both resident and winter visitors in various places in the UK (he says, repeating back a book).

Parakeets are recent-ish (1950's or later) escapees/releases who have managed to start breeding in the UK - London especially - and are something of a worry to conservationists. Occasionally the subject of amused news reports, so I wasn't completely shocked.

That is one ambitious 'pie!

Even before messing with it, this was ISO8000 (i.e. under shade), so everything is a bit softer than I'd like, and now I look, I should really have seen if I could have done better than a pure black eye!

Macro lens?

Anyway, I do like the contrast of the sharp detail on the grass and the bokeh in the background. What would have been glorious would be adding golden sunset light to the grass tips, but sadly light just doesn't do that, does it?

Embarrassingly low effort, but I just use Google Drive Shared Folders, read-only mode, and forgo any curation of what is seen (e.g. no imposed order, text, etc.).

In passing, this might read as a suggestion to go buy one of these filters. I would actually suggest thinking long and hard before doing that. Really, their only use is photoing the sun on a clear day, and so:

• Eclipses - a very slightly jagged dark circle out of a bright circle
• Sunspots - black blotches on a bright circle
• Conceivably solar flares, but I've never even tried for them (and probably even at their strongest, at the best angle, less than 5% of the diameter of the sun - I'm worried by my google results on that!)

On the flip side, these things are expensive (needing to be optical quality)and likely limited to one diameter of lens.

There is something deeply satisfying about making your own solar observations, but you may feel replete after very few photos!

Solar filters are the way. Thousand Oaks site has comments like:

"TRANSMISSION: 1/1,000th of 1%. Solar image is yellow orange. Safe for both visual and photogenic use. "

I can't entirely guess what your normal daylight settings would be, but I'd guess your attempted settings are not much less than 1% transmission of that.

Also, even if everything is digital, I'd refrain from pointing an unfiltered camera at the sun for more than a couple of seconds in case of heat damage from focussed light.

Really nice photo, what were you taking it with, and what sort of distance?

My Robin story I love to trot out is as follows.

Once upon a time in England there were Redbreasts and Wrens.

This wasn't good enough for poets, so we had Robin Redbreasts and Jenny Wrens (amongst other birds and animals Reynard the Fox, for instance).

But time went by, and people sometimes started just calling them Robins and Jenny's. The former caught on, so the common use name became Robin, while Wren stuck better. However, you will still hear the two part names from time to time.