ness

Fellers -- it's just joeD being joeD. Look at the time of the post too.

Huh? I want one....

Yeah, they're still around. The Berbiglia family, who owns a chain of liquor stores in KC, bought Brant's many years ago. The one at the Legends (near the race track) opened a few years back. Just not the same.

You know, I kinda used to turn my nose up at the whole slaw on pulled pork thing. That is, until I tried it

Thanks, Chief! I'm gonna file that one away for the next time I try doing this stuff. Looks like it's got all the right stuff.

Hah! I think Bryant's at the original location just slightly beats Gates. But Bryant's at the Legends, well, it's just not as good for some reason. Fries at Gates top the limp, oily ones at Bryant's, no matter the location. But if somebody suggests either one, I'm going!

Sure -- I'd love to see it. Maybe not so much to copy but to see what kinda of ingredients are in it too. Thanks for the offer. BTW -- I just gorged myself at Gates with the family on Saturday. Dang it was good.

What I see on my computer here at work is always different from what I see on my computer at home. My monitor at home is just brighter than this one. Here at work I like the exposure on the second one better -- the first is a little dim and loses stuff in the darker areas. At home, the second one is a little blown out -- the details in the brightest part of the yellow get lost.The first one looks better. It's an imperfect experiment, and there would probably be better ways to demonstrate 'sharpness', which was my intent. The differences in sharpness I notice most are outside the center of the picture. Look at the dead flower and frog to the left. And the detail in the table. It's pretty subtle, but you should see the first picture is crisper than the second in those areas. All that said, I guess I haven't made a real good argument for buying better lenses, have I. But you should do it anyway

I know what you mean about color and yeah Franks is god flavor

That sounds pretty good. That mustard and vinegar make it still sound pretty Carolina style. It's fairly thin, right?

Care to share that recipe? I used to dabble in making my own but haven't in years. My brother makes a great sauce, but the little punk won't give me the recipe. I just know it's different. Hmmm. I didn't know that about Ott's. We've always got some of the salad dressing in the fridge -- don't remember seeing their BBQ sauce on the shelves. We've got a lot of the local BBQ joints sauces on the shelves. I kinda bounce around between a few of them: Gates Sweet and Mild, Bryant's Rich and Spicy, Hayward's, Bryant's original, Jack's Stack. I occasionally buy a big brand when I need a lot of sweet sauce, but usually stick with the good stuff.

Alright -- here's two pictures taken with the same camera, same settings, on a tripod, only changing the lens and then refocusing. One picture was with the Nikkor AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 G ED; the other with Nikkor AF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G. The main differences spec-wise between the two lenses are: the 18-55 has a larger minimum aperture (the 5.6) compared to the 18-70. The bigger difference is indicated by the "ED" on the 18-70. It stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which is Nikon's higher quality glass formula. Settings were 200 ISO, aperture priority, f/8. Zoomed to 50 mm. There's a slight difference in the angle, as I probably moved the camera slightly when changing lenses. Also, the 18-55 shot was at 1/40; the other at 1/30. Camera decided that, possibly because of the camera movement picking a slightly different exposure. I focused on the center of the yellow flower in the middle of the frame. See any differences between the two?

Funny -- I don't know if my kids have ever eaten a Twinkie. If they have it wasn't at our house. Walk in to the local grocery store a week or so ago, ad they've got a big mountain of Twinkies right as you walk in with "We're Back!" signage. Unfortunately, my son was drawn in and wanted to buy some. We didn't. He got the lecture again -- the one about buying what you came for. One day it'll stick.

We're not getting nearly as much rain as you guys are, but getting some. It's been relatively cool too. Things kinda shut down for me several weeks ago, but are picking back up with lots of blossoms on the maters and peppers. A few getting picked, but not much. Pole beans were overcome with wilt or something. Need to pull them out and start thinking ahead to fall.

Naw -- just want to take advantage of the impending Royalex canoe shortage. I'm trying to make back the money I lost buying Twinkies on eBay.

Chunk it up.

Naw -- it's got a hot dog gun though. Everybody loves hot dogs.

200 almost worthless for wildlife? Naw -- scoot up. Tripod -- always; 400 isn't really in the cards for the vast majority of folks. Most serious photographers aren't adjusting resolution in-camera, they're shooting RAW. Much more info in a RAW file than a compressed jpeg. You've got a stop or more latitude in exposure, more dynamic range, and room for other adjustments too. I only use jpg for output -- whether it's computer, web or print.

Just a lowly 10 MP camera there. But, with a pretty sharp lens set on f/2.8 to get the nice background blur. I don't know what your budget is, but for just starting out that 14 MP with two lenses would sure get you going. You can upgrade lenses later if you really want. Here's an option: http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=nikon%2018-70&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e

Yeah -- you're right more MP allows you to use a smaller portion of the full picture with better detail. Kinda the inverse of the point I was making, but certainly valid. The zoom range covered -- 18 to 200 -- is great. The quality of the lenses, not so much. My son has the 18-55 and while it's fine, the difference in sharpness is noticeable versus my 18-70. I'll see if I can give a couple examples when I get home.

ROTFLMAOAWADMFYA!

As far as learning, green or full program modes will make you stupid.

Megapixels aren't nearly as important as the marketing would make you think. In fact, there are downsides to a lot of megapixels. Here's an example -- the first screen shot includes a picture I took. It's at a usable size on a monitor. But if I show it full-sized you see how much bigger the real picture is. Too big for a monitor, so the program basically throws away information to make it fit. Unless you're planning on very large prints, or looking at the stuff on a very large screen, there's not a lot of benefit to the extra MP. And, you're going to use up card/disk space faster and download times will be slower. Just not a lot of benefit to big megapixels for the vast majority of people. I didn't look too closely at the specs on the two cameras, but I suspect you could sum it up by saying the extra 12 MP cost you the second lens and $50. Decent bodies -- I'd say look for better lenses.

No interest, no problem.

Sure -- $2,000 per week is the usual vig.