What I'm saying is educating poeple helps, restricting peoples rights doesn't. If we allow some people to use fear mongering and bad science to take away all our rights.....

You want to talk about Man being responsible global warming....here's a question for you....

we digg oil out of the ground and burn it....create hydrocarbons and co2, but did we really creat anything or just move it around?

suppose we never used oil and left it in the ground, and a meteor hits Saudi Arabia.....


and ignites the oil and fills the atmosphere with WHAT?

The oil is dinosaur remains. to create that much oil required alot of large animals, that before turning into oil, were breathing in o2 and exhaling co2, and eating large swaths of tropical jungle to create methane.....
seems to me the Earth is no better off and no worse off whenever massive changes occur....

the planet may be changing towards being less hospitable to supporting large numbers of Humans, or it may do what it has always done and self correct....perhaps wiping us out in the process....

the dinosaurs weren't burning fossil fuels, and that didn't save them from climate change, or extinction, which may or may not have been connected....

One kid on an ATV or one housecat left outside can do more ecoligical damage than a bunch of photographers.... but that doesn't change the fact that we should try to be responsible.
part of being responsible is watching out for our rights.

OMG !!!! That sounds like "Common Sense"!

You know, I'm all for using common sense....except it ain't common anymore.

Some people really know how to put the "Mental" in environmentalist.
wouldn't surprise me to see "Green" protesters picketing Micheal Jacksons funeral, protesting the burning or burying of that much plastic....
The global warming fannatics fail to read the research that prove the Earths Climate WAS NEVER STABLE, it was always warming or cooling.....
to take credit for that in my mind equates to a sexually aroused mosquito floating downriver on his back screaming "Raise the drawbridge!!!"
and we are talking about the same Mother nature that brought us plagues, shark attacks, tornados and floods...She can get along just fine with or without us...
But I digress....
More rules and regulations are a good thing....
'cause common sense ain't common no more....

alot of green plus reflections off the red shirt might throw off auto color...use a greycard and set your color balance manually.
seems a tad over exposed as well.
set your color saturaion to "Neutral" as it seems a little saturated for portrait work...

Funny how I suspected something like that. Street life can leave a person looking old and young at the same time.
He is very thin.
possibly drugs.

I wonder what could be so bad theat the streets (and perhaps drugs) seemed like a better option.

I notice his collar and blanket (or is it a jacket?) look half decent, and not frayed...
he hasn't been there for a real long time, I hope.

The sooner he makes a connection with somebody that has the capacity to care about him and help him up, the easier it will be for him to adjust to life off the streets.

prayers for him.
kudos to you for SEEING him and asking his name.
too many people look past the homeless as if they are invisible, or avoid them as if they're the plague.

any chance you'll buy him a meal and get to know him a little?
I ask 'cause the photo leaves me wanting to know more...

B+W and hoya make slim ring filters for wide angle lenses, not cheap though.
don't know of any "budget" filters that are thin.

I would suggest that getting the body with the 16-45 INSTEAD of the kit lens if you had asked before purchasing...
I had one camera purchased with the 16-45, and one camera with the kit lens, and other than the constant aperture for studio work, where the 16-45 is better, they both are fine performers.
that 17-70 looks real good.
but in your shoes, I'd look for ways to expand your shooting options before replacing things you already got that aren't broken.
you want IQ look at the primes, esp the 50mm 1.4, best bang for your buck with ANY BRAND!

*What mac? I got aperture running fine on a g5. heard it can be done on a g4 but is too slow to be worth the trouble.*
the RAW compatibility is in the OS not the Application. If you got leopard, and it is upto date, then Preview, iPhoto and Aperture will open the k20 Raw files. But only Aperture will let you customize your Raw processing and work on them as easily as iPhoto handles jpegs.

**that is about the worst way to do it...about as workable as going to your proctologist to get a tooth pulled.**

Aperture is designed to import, sort, and organize your images, then touch them up.
iphoto still has uses, but it is easier to share the images to iphoto from the aperture library.

resource 4 u:
link

and again, all these images havn't been photoshopped, or fully retouched...
I'm just interested in hearing feedback on the lighting.
here he is again, feeling alot better today.