JohnP

I bought my 60D just prior to going to Cuba in March 2012 and I love it, I like the articulating live view screen and the video is great.

Now I've recently retired I have more time to play about so maybe I'll give RAW a try again and maybe I will find processing less of a chore... but I wouldn't bank on it... I hope this isn't a daft question... is there any point shooting an image RAW and just converting to JPG in camera and then doing any minor editing of the JPG image on my computer.

I should have said you don't lose the original RAW image as the JPG is save as a copy.

Colin... until this evening I've not bothered to check out in camera processing on my Canon 60D, anyway I was playing about with the camera and I took a few shots in RAW and without actually doing any changes to the images I converted them to JPG in camera.

Richard... Someone on here uses a Canon 60D... is it you? If it is you check out in camera processing, it seems you can shoot in RAW and then adjust brightness & white balance, there are more options but I haven't really looked into it that much. You can then convert the image to JPG in camera. This seems a strange feature to have on a camera, surely it's better to shoot RAW and convert to JPG after processing on a computer.

In camera processing is something I've never done, am I missing out on anything? I fail to see how one can do much in the way of processing on such a small screen. I hardly ever shoot RAW as I find it a chore having to do much in the way of processing. I do as little editing as possible. Say I was to shoot some images RAW and then convert them to JPG in camera, would there be any point in doing this. Would I be better off doing what I usually do and shoot JPG in the first place.

Higher ISO often produces more noise on images, generally it's better to use the lowest ISO you can. Obviously there are times when you have to use higher ISO, an example would be somewhere in low lighting conditions where flash was not allowed. If you are taking a shot and you need a good depth of field and are for instance using f16, you may need to up the ISO in order to use a shutter speed at which you can hand hold the camera without risking a blurred image. Using a tripod would mean you could use a slower shutter speed which would then enable you to use a lower ISO. When taking shots in good lighting conditions an ISO setting of 100-200 is usually OK and with most cameras noise shouldn't be a problem.

annie... he was real. I usually only ever see those police on the cheap one you mentioned.

When I was walking along our main street this afternoon, I was amazed... I thought I was dreaming or seeing things... no... I hadn't even had a drink... there was this what looked like a copper on the other side... was I really seeing a bobby I asked myself. I thought... I have to cross over and go and see if he was real and not some sort of blow up robot thingy. After all it must be 10 years since I last saw a real walking policeman in our town, I thought modern policemen only came with legs for operating pedals. I walked up to him and asked if he was real or was I imagining things... grumpy git was not amused... guess he was suffering withdrawal symptoms not having any pedal to press...

I'm sure there must be a better way.

That's a shame... I can't get the link to work.

I use Windows Photo Viewer within Windows 7 for looking at my photos on my laptop, when I right click on an image I get the EXIF data but it's not very comprehensive and there is this annoying thing that it doesn't show the correct date when the image was actually taken, it shows the date when the image was last modified. I very much like Opanda and I would like to know if there is a way to make Opanda my default EXIF viewer when right clicking on an image. It's easy to do with XP on my PC, but so far I've not found a way on my Windows 7 laptop.

I'm so glad I didn't replace my aging XP laptop with a Windows 8 model. I'm happy with the Samsung Windows 7 laptop I bought around Christmas time. I tried to include a link to an article I have been reading, but the link didn't work for some reason so I deleted it.

annie... I had a look and it's bound to be a copy but of what I've no idea. I'm not saying it's no good but I would feel uncomfortable about buying it for some reason.

Anytime soon I am going to the Wye Valley Butterfly Zoo. What I would like to know is which lens would be most suitable, I don't really want to carry more around with me than I have to and I would rather not be changing lens all the time. One might straight away think macro lens, but mine is 100mm with no zoom and I think zoom would be an advantage when composing shots. I only have three zoom lenses and I've obviously discounted my 17-40mm so that leaves me with two lenses of 70-300mm & 28-135mm. I'm thinking the 28-135mm would be the one to use... what do you think? Here's a link in case any of you are ever in the area and would like to visit. http://www.butterflyzoo.co.uk/

I'm doing my best now I'm no longer sitting driving over 1,000 miles each week... walked another 6 miles in my local wood yesterday.

The cost is insane... I can't get on with Photoshop anyway, I tried those free downloads that someone on here posted the link to and I am happy to continue with my old Paint Shop Pro9.

What you mean is your parents didn't stand you in enough muck when you were a kid...

Me too annie! Trouble is since my accident I have one leg an inch shorter than the other so I make an elevator to go inside my boot.... been doing that for 46 years... My little joke is... standing in my bare feet I have an average height...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22401589 I think I'm at the other end of the scale, last week in four sessions of walking according to my GPS I walked 23 miles. That's plus all the normal walking I do each day. Last evening I walked 6 miles and this morning 4.75 miles. I reckon I do well at nearly 67 years old with a not so good leg, that was extremely badly broken (bones were outside of my leg) in a motorcycle accident when I was nearly 20... I was in and out of hostpital for surgery for 10 years after.

Well done annie!.

As anyone following these Peregrines noticed that the female has a problem with her left eye, she quite often as it closed or partially closed.

Tina... It's the Ledbury Hunt and I have found out the RSPCA are aware of it. http://herefordheckler.co.uk/ledbury-hunt-filmed-killing-fox/

What I object to is toffee nosed horsey folks going out killing foxes with a pack of bl**dy dogs and making out they are only doing it to control foxes. They are only doing it because the sad bas***ds enjoy it and consider it sport. There are better and more humane ways to control foxes. I live in a country area and I see just how easy some farmers make it for foxes to kill poultry, most are just too idle to make poultry farms secure from foxes. A lot of farmers can't even be bothered to maintain their hedges, lots are full of holes and sheep etc are always escaping onto the roads and become an hazard to motorists. With regard to fishing ( I go flyfishing), that in no way compares to the brutal way that foxes are chased and torn to pieces by a pack of mad, barking, bloody thirsty hounds.

I would also like to say that the law is an ass, hunting of all types should have been completely banned and all hunt premises should have been raised to the ground. You cannot expect anyone to believe that hunts stick to the rules and follow scented trails, how can these dogs be keep under control... this video clearly shows they can't. There are most likely hundreds of foxes killed this way when no one is there to see what happens.