Andrea, I shoot RAW exclusively now for the reasons you stated except occasionally flip it over to sports because it goes auto to burst (I think), and does only .jpg. I love Photoshop, has a very steep learning curve, waited years until I got a $299 upgrade with Elements to CS2. I don't just use it for my photographs, and I agree with you about some of the software that comes with cameras, read about Nikon's, refused to get in the camera wars, was really torn between Canon and Nikon, at the time I thought Canons had better noise reduction at the expense of IQ, understood that going in. I started just doing graphics learning all I could with PSP (quit upgrading at 5 because I didn't like some things), then bought Photo Impact (fun for awhile but a waste of money), but when I saw the power of PS, I was sold. I don't use all the features, no, don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon (lightbox is really cool, can't afford it), but I love their USM and ACR white balance corrections and several others such as highlight/shadows tool (because of the limited dynamic range with all digital cameras, may be better with the more expensive, super-high resolution ones), when I want to make them pop more. And a lot of it is strictly a matter of taste. There are some incredibly talented with PS; I'm not one of them. The actual conversion process doesn't take more than 30 seconds, and when I can, I batch convert using scripts. I know everything you said is true, especially you can use Nikon pics right out of the cam, sharp as a tack, same with some good P&S cameras. Have to watch oversharpening, too. For web viewing, people probably can't tell the difference about sharpening. I can see it, very occasionally I don't bother with it, depending, but do like to do my own cropping and straightening, can't stand really crooked photos unless for creative effect. Other software does that just as well. I highly respect your opinion, and it sounds like you are some kind of pro. I don't presume to know everything. Blowing blows more dust in than I get out sometimes, always do that first regardless, a couple tries, then test, but I have used the wet method only once, got it better, but just let the dustbunnies I missed be for now and try to be careful changing my lenses. The only people I'd really trust to clean my sensor filter, not the sensor on Canon, but extremely delicate, is Canon. Nobody on the Canon dslr forum I've read yet on dpreview for almost 5 years now sends theirs anywhere for sensor filter cleaning; they all clean them themselves, most very confidently (not me!) many, many use a wet method usually Copperhill or a pen. I used extra pure alcohol and qtips I got at the medical supply center, just a drop w/eyedropper. I first try the dry method with Walgreen's brand q-tips very gently. The camera store person told me some use plastic knives from McDonald's! Not for me! I don't really trust my local camera store or Best Buy technicians. With the camera store, last time I was in was tempted to butt in and tell the customer something I happened to know, while the salesman didn't seem to, held my peace. Had some photos and a painting scanned I wanted to retouch, state-of-the art, awful, ended up using my camera and tripod. The camera store wasn't set up to cater to dslr users, maybe they're more with it now. I hate cloning out dustbunnies once a bad one gets in there, most don't show at the sizes and resolution I use, but do clone quite a bit for other reasons and like the healing tool. Once a piece of fiber got in there, it drove me nuts, that I got out by blowing, need a better blower, the Hurricane one. Sorry for taking up so much "airtime". Sooner or later most dslr owners are going to have to choose how to deal with it. Then if I screw up, I screw up, and will pay the consequences. You HAVE to clean your lenses, even on P&S cameras, which I do as little as possible. I know Nikon has fine cameras and lenses; that is why the choice was so hard, and sometimes I still look back, but now I'm invested heavily in a few lenses not as many as some have, don't need them, but very expensive and wouldn't get near what I paid for them if I sold them, even though they are all in mint condition.

Most of the time, the recessed cans are sold separately from the trim. Where that typically differs is with vapor-tight lights that are sold. Sometimes vapor-proofing is required where explosive gases (no, not toilet/husband related) as might be found in a shop or a laboratory might be ignited by an arc or spark. If you go to Home Depot or Lowes, they sell cans. Various types. You'll want an air-tight can, one that's rated for insulation contact. You can buy the can size that you want and then get a trim ring to fit it, but typically you'll find a trim ring of a certain size and then buy the correctly sized can to fit the trim ring. Shower trim kits sold at HD usually have a glass lens to contain the bulb, as well as a "sticky" rubber gasket that gets pinched between the trim ring and the can when the spring-loaded ring is snapped into place. Those are good enough for a shower, but they're typically not good enough for a steam room. Vapor-tight for residential steam showers? Those lights have a gasket between the trim ring and the housing, and screws that hold them together to truly make it tight tight tight. They're usually quite a bit more expensive. Realize that some cans are "remodel" and some are "new work". Remodel is if you're going to cut a round hole in the drywall and insert the can into the hole. New work is if you have the ceiling gutted and you can see the joists. You install the can, then hang the drywall, then cut the hole out so the can can pop through. So, how to shop? Go to a store and find a shower trim kit that you like. It'll be a certain size, 4", 5", or maybe 6". Now find a can to fit it. Choose a new work or remodel can based upon the stage of your project. Make sure it's air tight and insulation contact rated. Inside the can is a sticker that shows the maximum wattage for various types of bulbs that can be used in that can. Don;t exceed the wattage. If you do, the can could overheat. IC-rated cans have a thermal cutoff that will cut off power if the can temp gets too high. Most cans are a standard depth. They make shorter cans for low-clearance situations too. At HD, the can may run you $10. The "wet" trim kit may be $20-40. Vapor-tight lights intended for steam rooms? They can be $75-$300. Confused? I am! Best, Mongo

Nice work by lazypup! One other way to think of it is to equate what the camera sensor sees to how the human eye sees: Think of shutter speed as how quickly you blink your eyelid. A quick blink is like a fast shutter speed like 1/1000 of a second. With a quick blink you hardly expose your retina to the image you are looking at. A longer gaze where you stare at an object would equate to a slower shutter speed like 1/30th of a second. Think of aperture as being related to the size of the pupil in your eye. A wide open or dilated pupil is like a low f-stop number (a more open lens aperture), it lets a lot of light through to the sensor. A pinpoint-sized or very small pupil is like a high f-stop number (small lens aperture opening), it lets little light through to the eye's retina or to the camera's sensor. In the daytime in bright sun, your pupil will naturally decrease in diameter/size. It's trying to not overexpose your retina to bright sunlight, it's like using f-stop settings toward one end of the scale, f/8 to f/16. At night when light is limited, your pupil will open up wide to let light in, like a camera's f-stop settings in the f/5.6 to f/1.4 range. Think of ISO as how good your night vision is, or how well your eye or the camera's sensor sees at night. A high ISO number means you have excellent night vision capability. You might not always use the high number, but you have the capability. So a camera with a sensor that goes from ISO 100-1600 will be fine in bright light and at dusk, but in darker situations (indoor or theater photography) you'll wish your sensor was from ISO 100-6400. In general, the higher the ISO setting, the more artifacts or "digital noise" can be introduced into the picture. So you want to keep the ISO towards a lower number when able. Just because you can see at night, it doesn't mean the picture will be perfectly clear. One other thing, it is relative: ISO 1600 on a camera with a 100-1600 range will be grainier or noisier than 1600 on a camera with a 100-6400 range. The closer you get to the highest ISO setting your camera offers the more likelier you are to get noise. It's not a hard rule, just a guideline. You can still use a camera's flash to illuminate what you are photographing, much like a person would use a flashlight to see better at night. But a sensor with a high ISO rating allows flashless photography in low-light situations. Plus, a camera's flash can only illuminate so far out in front of the camera. At an indoor graduation ceremony you'll want to be in the front row to effectively use a flash. With a high-ISO camera you could be in the rear of the auditorium and still get nice shots with no flash. These three things; shutter speed, aperture or f/stop, and ISO, can be thought of as sort of making up the three corners of photography. There's fluidity between the three, shooting one of your camera's manual or priority modes allows you to vary things as needed for what you are shooting. Like lazypup wrote, shooting outdoor sports you'd want a fast shutter speed (a quick blink of the eye) so the fast moving athletes won't be blurred. A fast shutter speed limits the amount of light that gets to the sensor. So you can increase the amount of light that gets to the sensor by using a lower number aperture setting like f/4 or f/2.8, and an ISO setting like like ISO 200 or 400. In bright sun you could be ISO 200 for example, if there are clouds, the 400. These are just theoretical numbers mind you, not real-world specifics. If I'm in bright sun shooting outdoor scenery for vacation photos, I can have a low ISO number to maximize photo quality like ISO 100, a smaller aperture opening (smaller opening means higher numbered setting) like f/14 to maximize depth of field so everything in the photo, from foreground to background, is in focus. Then whatever shutter speed is required to make the desired ISO and f/stop work. Shooting indoor theater I want flashless photography. There is some motion on stage, maybe a little dance here and there, so I can use a somewhat slower shutter speed like 1/200th of a second to keep the moving actors from blurring, a sort of medium blink of the eye. I still need more light though, so I'll open up the eye's pupil with a wider aperture setting like f/2.8, and I'll give the sensor better "night vision" by increasing the ISO to a higher number like 800 or 1200. If I'm taking photos of a non-moving sleeping baby in a quiet room, blur really isn't an issue, so I can use a slower shutter speed of 1/60th of a second to let light in. I can use a medium-ish ISO like 400, and I can open up the aperture with f/5.6. All of the above are sort of wags of numbers to try to convey the idea of how the three things can be adjusted to compensate for what you are trying to shoot. The thing you'll find is that based on what you are shooting, one of the three things will be prioritized. Fast moving athletes might lead you to prioritize shutter speed to control blur. I might shoot in "S" mode to prioritize shutter. Shooting your child on stage in a school play might lead you to open the aperture wide open to maximize light to the camera's sensor. I might shoot in "A" mode to prioritize aperture. Lazypup said he'd write about depth of field, that can be an important criteria that leads to using a certain f-stop or aperture setting. So lots of variable. But you only learn by shooting, analyzing your shots, and trying different settings. The "delete" button is one of the beauties of digital photography.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to check out my beginning pictures. Picked up a book on the D90 yesterday by Magic Lantern Guides. The book is good at describing the basics of DSLR's but not specific to the D90. Today I will watch the included DVDs, there must be more specific info on them. If that doesn't help I will go get the "For Dummies" book. Awm03, thank for saying they look clear & sharp, but that is one thing I am disappoint with. I am going to try using a tripod and different focus modes. I hope I am not expecting too much. Thank you again.