Mike Engles

Placed 18^th in the challenge.

Placed 4^th in the challenge.

Was this focus stacked? Looks like it was as there is no sense of a flash being used

Very well done, OM system seem to be the best for macro, as was the film system, which I still have and use.

Similar shorts of price drops in the UK for the 100-500L, does that also presage a new 100-500?

The whole point of using Lightroom is for the catalogue. Otherwise the processing engine is pretty well the same as in Bridge. I started out even when I had Lightroom to use Bridge and Photoshop, ...

I suggest that you give yourself a consistent target. Set up some pictures on a shelf of people faces and use them to practice and get an idea of what them setting actually do.

I had similar problems with a second hand 100-400 1, that had hardly been used. After a lot of to and fro to Canon UK, they gave me a different lens, which was fine.

Yes that is a very good way to assess what is happening,,to some degree, as at least you have some reproducible conditions. I use family pictures on a shelf at about 1.5m and a 135mm lens

Re wetting ,can be very problematic UNLESS you can dry the film in a dust free environment. Dust could embed itself into the wet emulsion

To my eyes the scanner images are the most pleasing. The camera scans (including mine)always seem to have too much contrast or the shadows are not fully exposed. The scanner seems to get into the ...

The papyrus is OK, but you will need something finer than a lump of charcoal to capture any fine detail

OK

That, as I have said is why I often if there is time, check manually. I only take single exposures, so I do expect accurate focussing.

They do look good assuming you picked the eyes, which seem to be in good focus. Perhaps a DPP grab of the focus point would also be instructive? You have wisely chosen relatively un cluttered ...

No I check manually and very often with the aid our friend x6 MAG I can do better than the camera, assuming there is time to do that, For £4000 plus I do expect a lot better AF, than I have. After ...

So it was an opinion?

To me they are soft as if the focus was not spot on and the DOF did not cover it f10 is pretty high. At F10, a 700mm lens at 20m, the DOF should be 28cm for a 7D or a R7. The bird is not that ...

I was looking at the highlight at the tip of the beak and comparing it to the highlight in the eye, in the last picture.

Opinion or Irony? To me in the last picture the tip of the bird's beak is more in focus than its eye. They all look a little soft, to me