Does anybody else think that Simon d'Entrement sounds spookily like Steve Perry?

Earl? Is that a roll-off-the-tongue nickname for "url"? I suppose it's a better nickname than hurl.

I haven't watched either video but it seems to me that if compressed raw is a good idea, why aren't we all exporting as compressed tiff or DNG? I think I'll always want the best possible starting point and then decide if I want to throw away data for the sake of saving storage space.

The tree isn't taking anything away from the original. In fact it adds to the scene so it's a worthy addition.

Indeed. And no shortage of them. Thanks for commenting Sue.

Is that my post you're referring to? The post I quoted had potentially confusing mistake in it. What were you going to do - nothing? Or did you even notice? My main concern is that the mistake be exposed and the right information given. It's a potentially confusing subject that needs the right vocabulary to keep the confusion at bay. The wrong vocabulary has a lot of potential to cause further confusion. So what was your contribution going to be?

My view (a bigger file would have been nice).
.

Going from 1/30 sec. to 1/50 sec. is a decrease in exposure duration but it's an increase in shutter speed. Ditto for going from 1/200 to 1/250.

1/50 is a shorter exposure than 1/30 and 1/250 is a shorter exposure than 1/200. Shorter exposure = faster shutter speed - which is what will give sharper photos.

Wow - biofeedback in a camera! Sounds even better than AI.

The more zoom you're using the faster the shutter speed that you need. And just as cropping in post processing has the effect of zooming in, so does using a crop sensor camera.

Some say that you should use a shutter speed that's twice as fast as the inverse of the focal length. For a full frame camera that's probably being over-cautious but for a crop sensor camera like yours it's more of a sensible option. An example of that would be:-

Focal length = 50mm, shutter speed = 1/100 sec.

I'd say it comes very close to being special. Maybe a few tweaks to the composition is all that's needed. Having said that I haven't anything specific to suggest, except maybe cloning over the surface of the water where it disappears out of frame in the bottom right hand corner.

And all done to good effect. On my screen the blown sky is less than perfect but not a complete shot spoiler. Maybe it depends how high our monitor brightness is turned up.

And your dog probably enjoyed having him for dinner...

Ah, camera-holding skills. Will IBIS make that a forgotten art?

Some people think that wanting the best is an obsession. Some even think that wanting to improve has to be an obsession. For an obsessive person that may be true but the simple fact is that most people aren't obsessives. The desire for improvement and the desire for optimum results are motivators that most people can relate to.

Given the undeniable fact that raw is a better starting point than jpeg for editing (and the more extreme the editing the greater the advantages of raw), any arguments against using raw start to look suspiciously like lame justifications for not bothering. In that context the only argument that sounds in the least bit convincing is when the person admits that they know they're settling for second rate results and are happy to do so. If that describes your attitude, fair enough - each to his own.

Sometimes the advantages of raw are truly marginal, but in general terms the advantages are much more than that. And lets not forget that shooting raw doesn't just give better results, it also lowers the failure rate. Recovery and repair can both be carried out more easily and more effectively with raw as the starting point. And lets also not forget that the most common reason for the need for recovery or repair isn't user error, it's a lack of favourable circumstances at the time of shooting.