I do like the whimsy of the "framing" of the boats.

Thank you.

There's only one hide at Dinton Pastures, which is based round a set of lakes in old gravel pits. The hide looks out to the one lake kept aside from boating and fishing and so has lots of birds. This bird (and I think a companion I never saw clearly) were in the reeds in front of the hide so really close. But I do have rather a lot of partial shots too :)

Well, I'm glad it's working now, even if knowing the cause might have been useful.

Carduelis Carduelis in the UK case :)

I believe their plumage remains pretty much the same through their adult life, and males and females are really quite similar (with hints as to sex but not enough to be sure).

This doesn't sound like the sort of size errors I run into, but there are definitely image size limits (not quite sure if its dimensions or sheer file size) in Lemmy - have you tested with some small images?

That Midnight Sun is giving a lovely light to the flowers and the rest of the composition. Well done!

Thank you for catching those calls - I only ever get the raucous sqwarks!

Thank you!

Whereas all hummingbirds are completely foreign to me - I've seen a few in aviary's and that's it :)

Uh-huh, and the significant technical differences between those are?

(Hint: a digital video is a sequence of digital photos, usually with digital compression taking advantage of limited changes between adjacent photos, but mostly the same principles as, say, RAW to JPG compression)

OK, I'll bite - apart from imposing discipline on choosing your shot, and more human control over the process if you develop at home, what are the benefits of film over digital? My working assumption is that if you start with RAW format from any decent sensor, and comparable lenses, you can produce anything you could produce by choice of film, development process or similar - but perhaps I'm wrong!

Oh, if you've got a good printer (and ink for it!!!) then, yes, use them (especially if someone else is paying for it) - but I've pretty much given up on home colour printing these days - the ink is too expensive, and and runs out too fast. And the online equivalents are I suspect cheaper than home printing if you add all the costs in, and often better quality.

Getting high quality digital prints from digital photos is amazingly cheap these days (for example, I use https://www.photobox.co.uk/photo-printing/photo-prints-6x4 ) Which is also cheaper than professionally developed film - though you should avoid the temptation of photobooks, canvas prints, and so forth except in special circumstances.

So, get into good habits of quickly discarding bad shots (e.g. out of focus), and the worst versions when you have taken multiple shots of the same thing - either in pauses in your photography (avoid chimping) or when you get back home. Then do a round of basic cropping and any lighting adjustments. Perhaps add keywords or star ratings to the photos if that's your thing. Then consider what is worth printing, and what just kept digitally. Also purge functional shots (such as the pill photos of the video) when no longer useful.

I think with good habits, you'll spend less time on drudgery than film photography (whether you develop it professionally or yourself), you'll have moments of admiring your work as you do so (I hope!) and have better results at the end of it all.

Film photography can serve as a useful discipline in thinking about your craft, or be more rewarding as an act of creation, but it won't save you time or effort.