Well, wouldn't you know it, I got the pop this morning. I was making some stock for the week and had the pot boiling on a front burner while skimming the "chum." When I was done skimming, I moved the pot to a back burner to simmer and when I turned of the front burner, puff. From that point on it would puff whether simmer or high, slow or fast. As Trevor posted above, it had more to do with a hot burner and the extra gas. I guess I had always seen it before, but never thought much about it until this thread. One thing to take away from this is that when you do see the puff, there's no question that the burner is off.

Steph the higher the ISO the grainier the photos will look as that's adjusting the sensitivity to light of the camera's sensor, similar to using a higher speed film in a film camera. However it shouldn't be so noticeable at ISO 200. More normal would be some graininess at ISO 400 and over so perhaps your interior daylight isn't sufficiently bright. The yellow cast could be be from your white balance setting. Try changing that and experiment with different options. Try the tungsten setting, which you'd normally use for an indoor photo illuminated by incandescent lightbulbs. The camera will then reduce the yellow cast in your photo. Otherwise to get the correct natural colour try the custom white balance using white paper that I mentioned. Sharon

OK, I'll try an explain my thinking... 1.look at your environment and decide what you want to shoot. Since it just finished raining thought take some macro of water on various plants, used the ef-s 60 due to it lightweight for hand held close-ups. Next I look at lighting, low clouds but not too dark so I didn't need to use a flash, I can use settings to manipulate lighting. 2.Determine camera settings to archive the look you want. Take a few test shots at various white balance, shutter speeds, aperture, iso settings to get an idea how the end result will be. Used manual so I could adjust as light situations changed. Also change focus points depending on composition. 3.Take some photos Lighting is everything, watch how the shadows effect the look your after. Direction of light source, your position and so on. Doing this type of photography your able to take multiple shots at various angles to get the looks your after. The thing that I watch the most after camera settings is background objects and color. Find the subject, figure out your aperture/shutter speed, compose your shot, select focus point, check background. I don't want something behind the subject to draw your eye away from the focal point, aperture comes into play here. The bigger the f stop (smaller number) the more the bokeh( background out of focus) you achieve. I took 100 photos to get the 9 that were most appealing, out of those there are 4 that are my faves. f5.6, 1/50s, 800iso f5.6, 1/50s, 800iso Used ef 17-40 f4, settings f8, 1/100s, 800iso

"And Elmer, we don't need to hear anything from you about your belief that only students who can't make it into other med schools go to osteopathic schools." I'll share not beliefs but three real world cases. Reach your own conclusions. Anecdotes. Starting pieces of background - most medical schools turn away more than 90% of applicants. They have mountains of apps to go through and most applicants submit applications to dozens of schools. One of several first screens to narrow the field of applications received is quantitative - MCAT (the national entrance exam) scores and qualitatively assessed undergrad GPAs. Both to assess academic aptitude and accomplishments. California statistically has twice as many medical students as available seats in in-state schools, meaning, half of "California" medical students go to med school out of state. So they apply to lots and lots of schools, there's not a state school as in many states where in-state acceptance rates are high. Applicant #1 was a K-12 classmate of one of my kids but they went to different colleges. #1 was a decent student, above average grades but not by a lot. His MCAT score was mediocre. He applied to a few dozen allopathic medical schools his senior year of college (that's not a high number) and got no interviews. To strengthen his application, he got a job as a lab assistant in a biomedical research lab at a medical school. And he studied hard to improve his MCAT score. He wound up working two years in the lab position, went through two more application cycles with no interview offers, and wound up after the next cycle getting accepted to a DO school in the Midwest. #2 is the kid of my next door neighbor. Similar story, above average but undistinguished undergrad GPA and so-so MCAT scores. Applied to medical schools, got blanked. Decided to take a one year pre-medical school Post-Bacc program. These are one year college programs designed to strengthen the undergrad academic record, show dedication to the goal of admission, and improve MCAT scores. They completed the program, had a slight MCAT improvement, went through the admission cycle, got no interview offers. The next cycle, applied to DO schools and had multiple acceptances. Applicant #3 was a classmate of another of my kids. Similar story, unimpressive GPA and MCAT scores, as #1. Went through two application cycles with no interview offers. Applied the third cycle to DO schools and had several acceptances. My familiarity with the details of the process is that one of my kids. of an age between #1 and #3, also went through the process. A smart and personable kid who worked hard at a competitive college, had an outstanding GPA, diverse activities, and a good MCAT score. Got 5 acceptances and so had a choice of where to go. When I pick a physician, not only are informed recommendations important (as from other doctors) but so too credentials of education and training. Are there indications that the individual, from his or her past track record, seems to be an 80th percentile type or a 20th percentile type? Does that always describe a great doc or a poor one? No, of course not. Great docs come from mediocre schools and terrible ones from top schools. But as a starting point, past accomplishments and academic achievement can be informative. In selecting a doc as with sorting through medical school applicants, choices of residents by training program directors, choices of applicants for fellowships by program directors. All these processes are competitive and whether the particular doc was successful in past competitive situations are, for me, data points to consider. I want to choose docs who, rather than being mediocre, have excelled and achieved relatively more than their peers. It's a two tier system. Allopathic (MD) schools take the generally brighter and more accomplished applicants (in general) and the second tier, osteopathic schools, take those who have done less well.