Someone was asking about he 55-300 lens. I thought it was better than the Tamron lens I had but the test images didn't really do the lens justice.
I posted a few images (large) on my website if you want to take a gander.
These are all hand held, most at 300mm. (since my hands are not very steady I am very pleased with the results!!!)
I won't say they are macro lens quality, but I do think the resolution is pretty darned good. -- subjectively speaking.
I also like the bokeh, the backgrounds are very smooth and specular highlights do not seem to be overly garish.

Also, any comments or critiques are more than welcome!
I generally do not shoot bugs, so they are probably lacking in aesthetic quality. But let me know what you think.

pentax_55-300/080907_IGP5610.jpg

pentax_55-300/080907_IGP5621.jpg

pentax_55-300/080907_IGP5632.jpg

pentax_55-300/080907_IGP5634.jpg

I'll check that out as well. I've tried dozens of such programs but simply got tired of looking at the crap being put out. This one looks interesting. PhotoShop will do "everything" but is quite cumbersome and tedious.

Exactly...
I have a PhotoShop "Droplet" on my desktop that adds copyright or log info to a copy of the files when I am ready to post such images.
A Droplet is simply an action but wrapped by a small executable that you can drop photos onto. Although it still opens PhotoShop to run the action, it can be easier to process a large batch ion this way, than to open all files in PhotoShop and run the actions manually.

If you still need actual instructions for creating the copyright notice, search for WaterMark. You'll find lots of info.
Since you have CS3, also look for using Smart Objects -- they help give you the ability to set the copyright notice size consistently proportional for any size or rotation of image on which they'll be placed.

This is the method I was talking about (although thee are simpler methods that may not suit all needs as well)...
If you're unsure what they are talking about, we can definitely hep you get around.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.graphics.apps.photoshop/2007-1...

Very nice... I like the image a lot, but on the other hand it reminds me of the dragan stylized images that are so over done that they have become cliche. I think what really makes it is your fabulous method of handling B&W.

OK, so this all started in April, and I finally have an answer from Bogen/Elinchrom!

The support staff has been blowing steam up my arse for nearly the past five months and not answering questions.... finally I guess I hit the right nerve (got the right executives, perhaps??) and got answers to my questions.

Apparently the guy made mistakes with his initial statements of how these things work. They did not sound right to me and I verified them, but Bogen/Elinchrom being the omnipotent bunch they are, re-stated their "facts". The main mis-statement was that the Skyports induce a delay of only four millionths of a second.

The next five months was spent trying to find why they didn't work properly with my camera. There is no way 4/1000000 could possible affect 1/180s shuter speed!

Well, finally they have a quote from an actual technical person, and the delay is roughly 2/1000 to 4/1000 plus or minus some in camera delays.

I'm still not sure how a 1/250 second delay can affect 1/180 shutter speed, but the timing is close enough that I could see any lack of tolerance in Pentax hardware to be an issue.

In the end, I am quite irate about how Bogen/Elinchrom treats their customers and the lack of information and lack of attention given when a clear problem is brought forth.

Just a warning... if you buy something from Bogen/Eleinchrom, don't expect much in the way of support. With everything being made with more and more electronics, and the plans they have for the Skyports and the types of devices they plan to connect them to, there are going to be issues that canot be solved by replacing a cord or bulb. It is going to take some technical knowledge which they are just incapable of handling.

Sorry for rambling, but I've been talking to a wall for five months and the answer was with the exact question I had verified in their first response. Any atention to my request would have solved the issue immediately. Argh!!

Another trick you can use to "recover" hazy distant areas like that is to massively over sharpen. i.e with unsharp mask throw the radius to about 80 or higher, and push the Amount upwards of 150.
This will give a slightly different effect than using curves. The over sharpening causes some graininess to add false detail. Good for landscapes, not so good for skies.
Then mask out the areas that do not need it. It will look horrible for most of the image, but can look good for these sorts of recoveries.

Kool! You sure you weren't simply given an empty shell, "some assembly required"?

Perhaps some indications of what is or is not good/bad bokeh would be helpful? Are we talking about technical aspect or subjective qualities fitting a particular situation?

The original clearly makes for a poor image, but what makes it so. Not to single out any individual, but other than perceived intent, how it that bokeh different than the one with rain drops in the background?

There is technically good bokeh where the orbs on reflections are smooth, round and consistent as opposed to technically poor bokeh with oblong, possibly pointy, and perhaps with less or more dense centers v.s. edges. And of course mirror lenses give their own unique doughnut shaped bokeh -- which may or may not be desirable.

I wonder if the bokeh is really that bad in the first image or just not as pleasing to the eye as a smoother, blended blur.
Well, that and the horrible saturation levels of the background to compound the issue. (I'm not able to view images from here, so Im trying to recall what that one really looked like).

Not sure how "practical" HSS is, at least for me, it is only effective up to perhaps a meter at full power. So it's use is still quite limited.
I would not loose sleep over not having it.

Wireless on the other hand... priceless.

Yeah, a bit expensive. Got the 50-135 with a 2x tele-converter. I wouldn't say the quality is bad, and perhaps the tele-converter is poor to start, but I think I prefer the 55-300 natively.
Of course, the 55-300 with the 2x converter really brings things in close. Just a tad soft, no auto focus, several stops darker, and there is no way I can hand-hold for photos at 600mm. But the K10D still thinks its a 300mm lens, so shake reduction doesn't do much to help.