Another inexpensive solution is the simple close-up lens, screwed into the filter thread just like any other filter. Stopped down to f11 results can be excellent.

I use the WR version of the 18-55mm quite a lot and I like its characteristics. To go with this more lenses may be needed, but they don't have to cost a fortune. The WR 50-200mm is temptingto partner the kit lens, but I tend to prefer the 55-300mm for its greater reach.

To go wider there's little escaping the rather more expensive 12-24mm, which to my way of thnking is far more versatile than the fixed focal length of the 15mm.

It may be helpful to suggest never delete anything. I have all the exposures I have ever made with digital cameras and you never know when even a sub-standard shot may not be needed for something. The obvious case might be illustrating a common error and then showing how to avoid it. I might use such shots in a camera club talk.

I'm not sure I agree that Ansel Adams's kit was easier to use, it probably required quite a bit of knowledge. Modern camera on the other hand can be used with great success by just pointing and shooting. However, I was really referring to his thought process, where he pre-visualised the end result and used the equipment accordingly.

It's a good exercise to try - think of what we are trying to achieve and then work towards it when shooting the images. It's more constructive than shooting first and asking the questions afterwards, although sometimes that approach too can work out quite well.

AP in the 1930s and 1940s (no, I'm not that old, but I collect things!) carried useful articles such as "How To Make an Acetylene Generator" and, more pertinent here, "How to Resilver your Mirror" but those days are long gone.

Algi is correct in that not all silvering is actually silver, but the best is. The ME and MX, for example, are properly silvered pentaprisms.

I think we can assume so Stefan.

Going back to the original technique, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. It may be for some images, but it's an entire project on its own and not really a "dabbling" technique.

Still, anything that we enjoy exploring has to be a good thing.

I know many things Stefan, but if it wasn't what would happen to a silver surface?

We only have to examine all our silver cutlery to get the answer to that one.....

Generations of those who polished the silver will also know.

Interesting points.

The first one is I think not quite relevant as mixed lighting remains mixed lighting regardless. You can warm or cool an image, but the relationship between the differently lit components will still remain. Mixed lighting is always tricky, but it's more a matter of making decisions and using a variety of techniques to balance out the lighting. One such technique might be fill-in flash.

The second one is about pre-visualisation. The image in your mind can be the one at the point of shooting, as per Ansel Adams. Then the techniques applied have this end result in mind. This would be inclusive of decisions about white balance and exposure, for example. I don't always shoot this way, but quite often do. With an end result in mind, the exposure is tailored accordingly. It doesn't really matter whether the capture mode is RAW or JPEG.

A simple example is a brightly lit flowerr against a dark background. We want the background to remain dark and the flower not to be blown out, so we dial in -0.7 or -1EV of exposure compensation and we have a correctly exposed image. If this decision is made after the exposure there is a problem in terms of optimising quality.

It doesn't matter what causes the problem, it can be solved by following the instructions and limiting the size to 800 pixels.

In the levels box, you will find three eyedropper tools. These are the black, grey and white points. Click the white point and then click in the image the place you want to be white.

This sets the pixel selected as white and it can be useful, but sometimes will be very OTT.