The paper "Herschel Far-Infrared and Sub-millimeter Photometry for the
KINGFISH Sample of Nearby Galaxies" by Dale et al presents a systematic
analysis of the dust mass content of the full sample of KINGFISH 
galaxies in a very clear way.  This is a careful and useful study that
can serve as a reference for other studies which discusses issues 
related to dust mass estimates, in particular when assuming a single
dust temperature.  I have only two minor comments and a suggestion 
to improve the paper.

*** We thank the referee for the prompt feedback.

- The authors claim that the relative calibrations of Spitzer and 
Herschel are in very good agreement but isn't MIPS-160um systematically 
larger than PACS-160um in Fig.2 ?  This may be made clearer in the text.

*** We have revised the text to clarify that error-weighted MIPS 160um 
fluxes are 6% larger, on average, than the Herschel 160um fluxes.

- The authors write that Fig.4 presents a clear correlation while the 
data present a large dispersion.  It would be fair to mention this and 
maybe suggest a possible explanation for this dispersion.

*** While we tried to claim a clear correlation only for Figure 3 and 
not also for Figure 4, we acknowledge that the paragraph could have 
been better constructed to convey this intent.  This section now 
more clearly states that a correlation is seen only for Figure 3.

- Is it really useful to present the two panels of Fig.6 which are 
nearly exactly the same ?  Why not replace the bottom one by the 
specific SFR, i.e. sSFR=SFR/M*, which may be a good proxy of the 
relative amounts of light due to PDR vs diffuse ISM ?  This is 
just a suggestion.

*** We tried several sorting parameters (luminosity, SFR, SFR 
density, specific SFR, metallicity, peak wavelength, morphology, 
etc.), most of which led to "noisy" figures.  We settled on SFR 
and TIR as our preferred choices since they show an immediate 
link between SFR(H-alpha+24um) and TIR.

*** We have also restructured Section 4.6.