A number of artists (my wife among them) sometimes use photographs as the model from which to create a painting. But they use paint, and it takes artistry to get the colours, textures and shapes correct. Running a digital filter on a photograph uses a set of algorithms to create a facsimile of a painting, and is a process over which you have very little control. So if you were to ask me, are these art, my answer would be a resounding no. If anyone is the artist, it is the person who wrote the software.

As for the this process breathing new life into old pictures, I guess that's a matter of personal taste. Most images undergo some processing anyway, so it depends where you draw the line. Personally, I'd draw the line long before I ended up with an ersatz oil painting. Printed on canvas, however, I guess some of these could look quite nice. But they'd still be images processed to look like something they're not. It could be useful for creating Christmas cards, though.

I would imagine that when the new model comes out a few second hand old models will appear on the market.

Think I found what happened on another forum- it seems with version 1.0 of the firmware, if you selected the option to use the aperture ring, ie to recognise lenses without an A setting, you had to input the focal length of the lens. .

I have just bought a K3, I was intending to get a K5iis, but got the K3 for only £50 more, so it seemed daft not to buy it.

After fiddling with the settings, it asked me for the focal length of the lens that was on it. I changed lenses and the same thing happened. After resetting everything to default, it recognised the lens again. It's not happened again, and I've updated the firmware. Does anyone have any idea which setting wold have caused it to not recognise the lens? The only thing I can think of was that I enabled lenses without aperture rings.

I'm not sure how easy they are to find, but the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 is a great lens, pretty sharp wide open and very sharp stopped down, and a constant f2.8. When they do turn up they are quite cheap, ie around £150-£175. The only downside to it is it's not supported by any lens correction software that I know of, but it's a very well-behaved lens in terms of CA and distortion anyway, and easy to correct in Lightroom. I'm very happy with mine.

If you want a prime, though perhaps wider than you're looking for, the Sigma 24mm Super-wide II is available in AF and is one of the best lenses I've ever used. I got mine (a MF version) for £30, but it's the last lens I'd sell. I wouldn't bother with the 28mm version though.

The place to discuss anything relating to this weeks competition.

Nice one, Kris!

Looks quite good to me, too... I'll have to get my 8-400mm out and have a play with it, I hardly ever use it, though shot some crabs with it a couple of days ago. When I put mine up for sale here a while ago there were no takers for it.

When I first read about this, I wasn't too happy, having quite a lot of images licensed to them. But I guess it probably won't make any difference to how much I earn from them. At least the photographer gets a credit on the picture.

The strange thing, though, is Getty's definition of commercial use, which actually allows the embedding of images on commercial sites, as dpreview pointed out (and demonstrated) in that article.

From reading the post that was removed, I think the other party is the one who should be apologising.....