As I have only had the one comment posted to my blog since I cranked it up (which, I guess, is a whole lot better than none) I feel that I should respond to it. Rather than respond with a 'buried' reply to her comment I thought I might as well respond with a blog post. Her comment related to the Subaru WRX logo in the middle of my heading banner. In case I have changed the banner graphic by the time others get to read this—and they wonder what I am rabbiting on about—following is a reduced-size reduced-depth version of the heading banner graphic I am talking about.

      The comment contained the question: Where did the middle picture come from? They reason this question was asked is that the reader is familiar with this particular Subaru Impreza decal but had not seen a coloured version of it like this. This is because the original photograph that I took did not look like the one in my banner graphic. Following is the original photograph before doing some cropping and simple colour changes using PhotoShop Elements.

This picture was cropped down to just the decal part, brightened by setting the levels (or setting the "black and whites" as some people refer to it), and then I used the PhotoShop Elements magic wand to select the WRX and fill it in with a bright blue, select the inside of the "evo" and fill it with yellow, and finally select the inside of the 4 and fill it with a darker blue.

So that solves that mystery. I don't have a specially coloured decal on the Evo 4, I just improved the picture I took of the dull grey one that is on it.

Barry.

I am in the computer industry and had about three computers in the house at the time so moving across to digital photography was somewhat easier for me than it has been for other film photographers I know. I was already very familiar with PhotoShop, Corel Paint, and Paint Shop Pro; and the finer points relating to editing raster images. Whilst I had some reservations at the beginning I have no doubts now that digital photography is significantly more fun that film photography. There are lots of reasons for this, but a few that come quickly to mind are:

• There is no 12, 24, or 36 limitation on the number of frames you can take. A 14MP camera with a 4GB removable memory stick can take over 550 shots at the best JPG quality. Even when taking digital negatives (RAW) a 4GB stick will hold about 250 shots.
• You can adjust the ASA/ISO ('film' sensitivity) up and down with each or any shot, unlike with film where it is set for the whole roll.
• If you take digital negatives (RAW images) then you can play around with the exposure and white balance even after the picture has been taken.
• Cataloguing and storing digital photographs is so much better than trying to store film negatives or slides. Most good digital photo management tools allow you to add notes and comments to each picture, and you can sort and organise them in as many different ways as you like.
• Going back and looking at 'old' digital pictures on a computer is significantly easier than any method I know of for doing the same with negatives or slides.

Anyway, enough for this post—the shorter the better. I am using Word 2007 to author and post this entry so I should be able to set a word limit. I notice that this posting has 489 words to this point, which hardly seems possible when I look back, but presumably Word cannot be wrong about this. So maybe a 500 word maximum is a good limit. Barry.