First of all, you do not need to learn how to work with Camera Raw format. That format offers you abilities to do work on an image that a JPG doesn't, but if you mostly want to publish photos on the Web, then working with good quality JPGs is going to be quite sufficient. And yes, digital cameras all produce some degree of "noise" in images. It works pretty much the same way as film does: the higher the light sensitivity (ASA) the more visible the grain or "noise" becomes. So if you are setting your camera with a very high light sensitivity, 1600 ASA for example, the noise ("graininess") in the photos will go way up. Setting the sensitivity as low as you can is always advisable as long as it doesn't compromise your getting a sharp, clear image. Getting a good image depends on three basic factors: 1) shutter speed - the duration of the opening of the shutter must be as short as possible, within reason, to eliminate any motion of the subject or shaking of the camera operator's hands. Generally you want to use a shutter speed of at least 1/125 of a second or less. 2) depth of field - this controls how sharp the photo is by determining how much of the subject from closest-to-camera to furthest-from-camera is within the range of focus of the lens. Depth of field is determined by how small a lens opening (aperture) you set. It is usually a balancing act between shutter speed and aperture to get lots of depth of field and still use a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate any motion. Most inexpensive digital cameras don't allow you much (or any) control over these settings and simply make a decision for you. This isn't always ideal, but you may not get a full range of features from a camera in your affordability range. If possible, look for a camera that does allow you some manual control. 3) image quality settings - set the ISO/ASA ("film speed" or light sensitivity) as low as lighting conditions will allow. I personally enjoy shooting under overcast conditions which I feel best displays the full range of color of flowers and eliminates hard shadows and highlights. On a cloudy day you can often get a much more painterly look than a bright day. This means you may have to set the camera's light sensitivity to a higher setting, like 400 ASA/ISO or even higher, in order to get both a fast shutter speed and reasonable depth of field. (Keep in mind that depth of field is optional for some kinds of photos: sometimes you don't want everything to be sharply in focus from front to back, and so you may want to shoot with the lens wide open = very little depth of field) Under cloudy conditions I will often set the camera sensitivity to 400 or even 800 if necessary. If you are very lucky and the air is very still, you can use a tripod and leave the ASA/ISO setting way down at 100 (or however low your camera allows) and when you do that, you are reducing the "noise" in the image to minimum. I work exclusively with a Nikon D80 and I find that at its lowest ASA/ISO (which is 100) I can get a very large image that shows next to no noise. Even when I turn up the sensitivity to 800, I can still get a very good image with very little image noise. Its only when I turn sensitivity up to 1600 or more that image noise becomes very noticeable. A few other points: Jeri mentioned image editing software. Your needs are probably going to be very basic at the start and so perhaps Photoshop Elements might be all you need. I'm not sure what other tools might be available in the cheap-to-free range. I gather that Google's Picasa offers the basic photo editing tools. See link below. If you are up to grappling with a fairly steep learning curve, there is a free Photoshop type editing suite called The Gimp and it is almost as powerful as the full Photoshop suite, minus a few of the tools and filters. There are plenty of tutorials online to help you learn how to use it. Also, as Cass mentioned, if you are working on an OS X iMac (as I do) then you can do many image manipulations using the built in iPhoto tools. I can't tell you much about iPhoto though, since I use Photoshop CS4 as my tool of choice. If you can get your head around the idea of buying a used camera, you will undoubtedly get a lot more camera for your money. You might be lucky enough to get a DSLR for what you have to spend. I sold my Nikon D70 two years ago for less than half what I paid for it and the person who bought it got a really good deal. It was an excellent camera and I'm sure it still has years of service in it. So, you may want to consider buying second hand. People often sell their current camera to upgrade to a newer, more capable one (as I did) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the camera they are selling, they just want to move up a level. Finally, if you already have an understanding of the basics of film camera photography, then you already know most of what is important in digital photography. All of the same basic principles apply to both, its just a matter of learning how to use the specific camera controls to get what you need from a digital. No need to be intimidated by digital imaging, especially if you have a friend who cam teach you along the way. Regards, Paul B. Here is a link that might be useful: Picasa

Stan, My realistic flower hummingbird feeders are even smaller in capacity than yours. They are made with 50ml liquor bottles, which hold only 1.77 ounces. I fill them up entirely, and at the height of the season, put up two or three at a time. It usually takes at least a day and a half for them to drink all of the sugar water, or, at most, 2-3 days. This suits me fine because I believe in cleaning them frequently. I don't like to take any chances with the health of "my" birds, and having smaller feeders also leads to less waste of solution. I know I get at least 4 birds, and maybe a few more, but it's hard to say for certain. They're hard to tell apart and who can say for sure if I'm seeing the same male at each visit, or two different ones. At very least I have had one adult male, one adult female, and then a couple of babies by midsummer. If there are a few more, it's hard to say. I am gradually expanding our garden. Last year I had Bleeding Hearts, native red Columbine, Agastache, some purple hybrid Lobelias, Lobelia cardinalis, Zinnias, and Salvia coccinea. In spite of the nice flowers, and contrary to the experience of some people on this forum, my adult birds were feeder junkies. I had trouble getting the adults to use flowers--even highly attractive ones like Monarda didyma, Agastache, and Salvia coccinea. The babies were all over my flowers last summer, but the adults showed less interest in the real flowers than in the feeders. I don't know the reason, other than that I think it takes less energy to visit feeders, especially when your garden is relatively small, like mine, and you don't have huge stands of flowers. In most cases, I only had about 3-6 specimens of each plant. Maybe they need large massings of flowers, like in your formerly huge hummer garden. Or, maybe I can flatter myself to think that they appreciate the realism of my feeders! One of these years I'll invest in a digital camera. I understand, though, that some models have a significant delay in snapping the picture. I imagine you must have the kind that takes instantaneous images. I don't think wildlife photography would be possible without instant results. I wonder why they make them that way? It must be a memory thing or some design constraint. Who in their right mind would want a camera to have a lag in the shutter?

I don't know either. Haven't planted any in ages. I dust the cut pieces with wettable sulfur to prevent rot. I did some ornamental sweet potatoes not long ago and they are growing well so you never know. Go ahead and try you just may have to water more in the heat.

I agree that it looks like a non code compliant ledge. It needs a railing, or more. Looks like a hard and dangerous fall waiting to happen. Even with a railing it would still be treacherous for young children who are fond of climbing on things. Even the cat could take a nasty fall from that. It also looks pretty dark and uninviting and slightly sinister. Maybe it is that dark descending staircase and that potential fall into oblivion that adds a sinister touch to it along with all that dark wood. What is it called?.....a potentially life threatening accident waiting to happen and a very hefty lawsuit.