For those who might remember this question from last year, I thought I'd post an update. First, a photo of said fence shortly after it was constructed. Sorry, I didn't realize the photo would be quite so humongous. I will use restraint in the number of photos posted. Did I solve the problem? Uh, yes and no. By yes, I mean the fence doesn't feel like it's "in my face" anymore. One reason is because in getting to know the very nice neighbors better, they mentioned the fence is only to restrain their dogs, and once the plantings on their side fill in, (planted more than 2 years ago and growing rapidly) they plan to take the fence down. Yes, I did plant 7 Cyrtostachys renda along the fence. They were fairly good size, but it will be 3 to 4 years before they accomplish much in the way of screening. Another 10 much smaller C. renda have been added to the original 7, allowing for the desired undulating shape along the fence -- the first 7 are in a rather soldierly line. It will be 8-10 years before the bed fully achieves the intended look. (That's the "no" part of my answer.) Using an old magician's trick, I've opted for distraction by developing the "middle garden" in this area. The original 3 palms I planted have grown tremendously in one year, and we've planted a pool of grass around them. (Planted -- it's not growing yet.) Beyond the grass is the beginning of a curving red cinder path, an allee of Areca vestiaria. The path leads to a clearing at the rear of the lot where we hope to construct a simple open platform with a roof on it. We started referring to it as a "tea house", but you might call it a pavilion, or a gazebo, a yoga studio, a tiki cocktail hut, a meditation room, or beer garden, depending on how we make use of it from one day to the next. Getting back to the garden, I wanted to post 'before and after' pix, but that would be too many photos. Consider the above as a 'before' photo, even though that was AFTER the heavy equipment came in to remove the trash trees and the jungle tangle, leaving bare, broken lava which immediately sprouted rampant weeds. I don't have a moon gate yet, but I have a boulder -- together with the palms around a 10,000 gallon water tank to the left, they "frame" an entry to the middle garden. If you walk across the left side of the lawn -- which appears here as a smooth dirt area -- toward the first boulder on the left, you arrive at the Areca vestiaria path. In the end, screening the white fence has become "small stuff" and we're not going to sweat the small stuff. Sometimes the best solution is an attitude adjustment. As a complete amateur, visualizing, planning, and implementing a garden in phases on what for me is a huge scale has been an enormous challenge, but also very satisfying. We've done tons more work in the garden and on the house interior than shown here, and have tons more to go. It's a labor of love, and we take time off to play, too, so things are moving forward a little at a time. Most recent acquisition for the house: a couple of cheap but very comfortable chairs to rest our weary bones in when day is done.

Some interesting tid-bits: * The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential. * The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C. * The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it). * The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. * There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. * The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.) * Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales. * Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects. * Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. * There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. * Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term). * Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. Betty Boop

In some of your photos, the camera has focused on a background feature instead of the main subject, for example, the brick wall and the woven fence. In these cases, you may have to resort to manual focus. The auto-focus technology is not perfect. It follows a set of its own rules and these do not cover all situations. In one case that I know about, the focusing routine (algorithm) looks for hard edges in the scene and adjust the lense to make these as sharp as possible. Thus, the focus routine fails if the central subject is fuzzy. It has difficulty in focusing on fuzzy thistle blossom, but may settle on the leaf edges seen in the near background. I have another brand of digital camera ( a much earlier example). This had excellent color renidition, but only 2 Megapixel. This one had a particular focuing rule: If it could not find a suitable edge to focus on, it racked the lens to infinity and led one to believe focus had been achieved. This was done to keep the focus mechanism from hunting when the camera was aimed at the sky and or clouds. Many of your macro shots are lovely, but then an occasional blossom is out of focus or poorly exposed, or does not have enough dynamic range to differentiate between the varying shades of white. Some of the blur may be due to motion of either the camera or the subject, but I did not detect the unidirectional smear typical of a wind blown blossom. There is a need to increase the depth of field for closeups of the blossoms. This is done by using a small arperature. For floral photography, you can shoot as slow as 1/30 sec with a tripod (highly recommended). Also, a larger len opening, say f/ 5.8, can be used to narrow the plane of focus. You have a Canon Powershot A630. I have the Canon Powershot S2 IS. There may be some similarity between these models. I was disapointed with mine until after I made a series of test shots. What I discovered was that the dynamic range of the sensor was not as large as I expected and the white to light colored objects were burning out in scenes with significant dark values. The default setting was overexposing a bit. This was corrected by reducing the exposure by 1/3 f-stop. (In my camera, this is not adjustable in the auto mode. Switch to the P (program) mode to make custom adjustments.) The default sensitivity is ASA 80. This results in slow shutter speeds for reduced light. This can be boosted to ASA 100 without much noise effect. In fact, the gain in shutter speed will more than offset any noise increase. With these adjustments, my shots were much improved. In a few cases when the result is too dark, it can be brightened with processing software. However, if a scene contains a burned out image, no amount of processing can save the picture.

Just finished John Sandford's new Lucas Davenport thriller, Field of Prey. It was like riding a roller coaster during a tornado. I could barely catch my breath. Now starting Simone St. James' newest ghost story/mystery, Silence for the Dead. From the back cover, italics are mine: "In 1919, Kitty Weekes, pretty, resourceful and on the run, falsifies her background to obtain a nursing position at Portis House, a remote hospital for soldiers left shell-shocked by the horrors of the Great War. Hiding the same of their mental instability in what was once a magnificent private estate, the patients suffer from nervous attacks and tormenting dreams. But something more is going on at Portis House - its plaster is crumbling, its plumbing makes eerie noises, and strange breaths of cold waft through the empty rooms. It's know that the former occupants left abruptly, but where did they go? And why do the patient all seem to share the same nightmare, one so horrific that they dare not speak of it?" PAM