"Strange Fruit" has much darker, horrid connotations in the South from the days of Jim Crow.

Main problem with this comp. is the lower edge of that shingle passing horizontally behind the titmouse. If you plan more BOAS (bird-on-a-stick) shots near your feeders, spend some time in arranging the nearby branches that the birds can use for resting / staging moments just before or after feeding. Consider need fo uncomplicate nearby background clutter!

Juvenile red-tailed hawk

A 20X prime lens on a full-frame sensor = "normal" focal length (50mm) x 20 = 1000mm.

A 20X zoom RANGE would refer to 1000mm. on top of its focal length at the widest of it wide-angle setting.

Are you dealing with a full-frame sensor or a "crop-factor" (smallr) sensor?

Give a clue if comments on first image were helpful or not. It helps to know how much / what kind of help you want.

The change from brightness of the path to abrupt descnt into darkness of he woods is...abrupt. Burn in, a bit, he bright rock face on the left as it approaches the entrance to he deep wood, as well as the right edge of he "entrance hole". Clone out the near half of the hand rail and its nearest post. Also clone out fhe two, lower, smaller diameter bare branches in the upper left...they both (hand rail and lower branches) are distracting. Also dodge to lighten a bit just the first step down from the bright flat stones of the path. I like the image. Eliminating the distractions and softening the value changes in the path as it proceeds into the depths of the scene should help more than a little!. The complementary red and greens and the textures are great! Dave Graham

Photography with your kids at the zoo? There's nowhere that a kid can disappear more quickly than at a zoo. Leave the camera at home or leave the kid at home. Each is important enough not to try them in combination! But of course, if your sole aim is images of a child enjoying the zoo, that can be a wonderful day!

Sorry to hear you had such problems with Dropbox. I got from the website , have used it for almost two years with no problems, and have recommended it to many friends...and have heard no complaints. Wish I were able to help, but have no history of problems with it!
Dave Graham, Estelline, SD

You already have given him a rational intro to the basis of exposure.

Three additional considerations will cover all he...or any other photographer ... ever needs to internalize and bring into play before squeezing off the exposure:

Perspective: understanding the merits and relative effects of wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens perspectives,

Composition: it ain't all rule of thirds..., and

CAMERA STABILIZATION! all the rest is for naught if camera movement and vibration render the image "soft" or frankly blurred! Learn stable hand-holding technique and other means of stabilization...especially use of a tripod!

These are the "Big Four" my dad instilled in me in 1947 and, through many decades of teaching photography, I have found no way to improve on the list! All the rest is detail and niceties.

Dave Graham, Estelline, SD

Yes, your camera may display your RAW file as a B&W version...but simply a desaturated one which in all liklihood could dissuade you from pursuing the B&W alternative given that your own pp would produce a B&W image far more representative of your mentally previsualized B&W version of the scene.
If you think there's the slightest possibility that a scene may look better as monochrome, DON'T pass on that possibility just because your camera's monochrome display may not pass muster. Capture the image as you would optimally capture any full color image, and later make the decision re: color vs. monochrome in pp. Relying on your camera's desaturated display as the basis of your decision to pursue the monochrome route will cause you to dismiss more than a few images that could be excellent candidates for creative, impactful monochrome conversions. The more you become comfortable with monochrome conversion the more you are likely to many more color images in your files that are good candidates for conversion!

Capturing in RAW and pp to B&W gives you orders of magnitude greater flexibility in the nature of your final image. Capturing the image in B&W simply gives you a desaturated file which, having lost the separate color contributions, severely limits your creativity by limiting the range of tonal manipulations available to you.

From a somewhat different perspective...
As a workshop presenter I'd be delighted if each participants showed up with a bridge superzoom camera with a Zeiss lens (threaded for filter rings) that delivers 40X (manual zoom) and macro, a back-lit CMOS APS-C sensor of at least 16 mp, renders RAW Image files, bursts 10 to 12 fps, uses both contrast and phase AF with at least 10 crossed focus points, and is powered by rechargeable AA cells.
...and if that camera were available only in chartreuse metallic glitter finish I'd still buy it!
Dave Graham
East River, SD

My quandary was not too different from yours; to wit: whether to go for the A99 or wait for a Sony full frame 36Mp model?
I'm fully and happliy satisfied with...indeed, awed by...my A77 and its APS-C sensor for wildlife, landscapes, macros, and even digiscoping (the superb EVF is great for scope focusing) but may consider full-frame when Sony decides that the 36Mp sensor it presently has out on Beta test in the D800 has been sufficiently tweaked to stick in a full-framer with the Sony Alpha logo.
Dave Graham, East River, SD

<I always thought those tax breaks and subsidies were measured by the production figures of the companies, not as a fixed figure as you imply.>

No implication of "...fixed figure..." intended or made. The egegious tax breaks and subsidies are often awarded to corporations after years of record production and profits during which prices were raised "because they could"!
They were awarded by the efforts of Congressmen and Senators who are in the pockets of those wealthy industries and who can continue to expect "industrial strength" campaign fund largesse as long as they legislate in harmony with the industry's claimed need for such tax breaks and subsidies IN SPITE of record production and profits. The claim that such tax breaks and subsidies result in increased job production is, simply, false, or, as some would acurrately term it, a lie. Twelve years of this "trickle down / supply side" economic philosophy under Reagan-Bush, and eight more under Bush 2 are proof positive of its inherent fallacy and failure. The horrid economic plunge toward a 1929-style world-class depression that the present Administration inherited and competently reversed was proof-positive of the failure of "VooDoo" Supply Side/Trickle Down - assure continued growth of the wealth of the 1%" approach.
What goes around comes around. In 1896 at the Democratic National Convention william Jennings Bryan said:
" “There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them.

He has been continually proven right!
Dave,
East River, SD

Econ. 101...first week:
When there is increased demand for a business's services or products, jobs will be created to meet that demand...not to do so ill serves he stock holders. When a business receives tax breaks or egregious subsidies with no increased demand for service or product, those $$ go into the stock-holders pockets and company coffers...NOT into more jobs!
This ain't brain surgery or rocket science. It's common sense. Just a damned fact!

Trickle down?
ARRANT BUSHWAH !

Dave
East River, SD