Spooky! When you took #2 & #3, you were standing about 20 yards from my back garden! But then, this is a popular spot for photographers. You took these on the same night/evening that I took my Divebombing Gulls sequence, elsewhere in this forum - though I was around the other side, on Grand Parade, for that.

You weren't up here for the Volleyball Tournament, by any chance, were you?

Anyway - on to the shots. It's strange, but I see these sights so frequently, it's hard to find them magical anymore - which is a great shame... but I really like what you did with the last two. The reflections are excellent, especially in number 2. The exposure length makes the water look so still, it's like a mirror - yet we know it's really rushing by over the weir. Your photos give it a degree of stillness and peacefulness that really is magical.

I would have to concur with thoughton that the right-hand arch is maybe a tad burned-out, but that floodlight on the right (out of shot) is very powerful, and it's extremely difficult to expose that shot correctly and still get enough detail on the opposite side of the river - so I would still say yours was a technical success.

Same goes for the view over Pulteney Weir... you captured the moon beautifully. And those of us that know the location, know you did well to get rid of the awful ugly sluice gate just out of shot on the left!

Nice set. Hope you had a nice visit to Bath while you were here, too!

Oh - just one thing... the EXIFs in your last two shots show a 'Date Taken' of 21st May, 2007, at around half-six in the morning (when it would've been much lighter, so that can't be the right time). Do you problem with your camera? It's not important, but I happened to notice it, and wondered if you knew. Maybe your camera-clock just needs resetting.

Personally, I'd recommend ACDSee Photo Manager 12 - it has pretty much everything you've mentioned:

- it's a photo browser, sorting and viewing by whatever criteria you throw at it,
- it can catalogue images very fast,
- it can import images direct from the camera or SDCard (though I still do this by a drag-drop file-copy myself),
- it creates a database of quick-loading thumbnails,
- it has limitless category and tagging options,
- it has some basic (but powerful) editing tools (red-eye removal, heal, etc)
- it can burn everything to a CD/DVD (either as a backup filestore, or a playable slideshow for watching on TV/sending to grandma)
- it can upload to Flickr, Facebook, etc in a couple of clicks, optionally resizing and tagging on the way, too,
- its editing tools are non-destructive (originals are kept safe)

I first read about it in a couple of photography paperbacks, but eventually downloaded the trial version from CNet, and loved it. I use it in preference to Adobe CS4's Bridge app, which I get the distinct impression is trying desperately to be ACDSee! I may be wrong, but they do similar jobs - though I think ACDSee does them slightly better.

I think when I analysed the differences, the clincher for me was that ACDSee could 'remember' photos that were held in offline storage locations, such as CDs and memory sticks that you might not want plugged in all the time (but which would call for the disc/stick when you attempted to view the actual photo, rather than its 'browser' thumbnail).

Give it a try - if you hate it, don't buy it! They seem to be doing some sort of bundle at the moment, with some other software that I know nothing about... but it might be worth it. The whole lot is on at about 70 dollars (about 45 quid), but you might be able to find an older version which is freeware, perhaps - see http://www.oldversion.com/ACDSee.html - not sure.

I really like both of these. I've been trying to work out why, but I think I've nailed it down to:

- they both contain a contrast - a juxtaposition - a clash of some kind. The top one shows a high-fashion, high-art scene in the dresses, clashing with the clonky, old-fashioned, utilitarianism of the electrical fuseboxes in the window next door.
The second shot is similar - you have the posh, bright, interior of the shot, with its twinkling lights and reflections from the necklaces? and suchlike - and right next to it, the clash with the guy seemingly checking his shoes for something less, er, classy! The mop and birdcage on the floor seem to link to him, too, and are conveniently on the correct side of the shot, to lead you to him.

- you've done really well with the reflections, not getting yourself in them! Did you use a polariser, or were you just lucky/skilled?

- the framing/cropping is perfect. I've not checked, but there's a hint of 'Golden Mean/Golden Ratio' about them, if you know what I mean.

Yeah.. I like these a lot. Much better than the couple of windows shots I'd taken this week! But yours have given me some inspiration, though!

Cheers

An update...

I tried to find an email address for Pentax Japan, though their website seems to make a point of not publishing anything other than telephone & fax numbers or street addresses in Japan. I s'pose I could write them an old fashioned letter, but I'm not sure I know how to work a pen anymore...

I reasoned that it was probably pointless emailing the UK Pentax Service Centre, on the grounds that they're probably just a contractor, and not actually part of Pentax (and even if they were, they'll probably be about as far removed from the design decision making process as we are).

So - does anyone have any useful 'direct' email addresses that might be handy? Preferably one that doesn't mean I have to sign up to a blog account or join the St John's Ambulance, or become a freemason. Though I am grateful to Hefty for pointing me at Ned in the USA... I still *might* join up just to hassle him!

As luck would have it, I bumped into our local Pentax rep in LCE last weekend, and mentioned the whole DFS saga to him. He had no idea about it, and less idea still about the 'outcry' out here on the internet. I told him there was a petition with several hundred signatures on it, and that a lot of forums carry some quite angry threads about not being able to turn it off (above 30s), on several different cameras. He genuinely seemed concerned - so I asked him to feed it back into his command structure. I can only hope that he will.

Alas, he didn't have a business card on him, so I wasn't able to quickly take his contact details...but he let slip that he is the Pentax rep for my favourite independent camera shop too, so I will grab his details from them, next time I'm in! (and with my current accessory-buying addiction, that'll probably be in the next few days! :lol

God help him after that...

Hi. What's your asking price? Cheers,

That'll be interesting if, after a few more days, the winner changes...

Another wrinkle we (or whoever is acting as overseer) needs to bear in mind for future competitions, no?

I haven't finished testing yet, but I'm grateful for all the input above.

I'm reaching the conclusion that this is probably a one-off, due to several factors:
- evening sun;
- proximity to large amounts of water, some of which would be airborne due to the weir;
- shadows (on the worst-affect shot, at least);
- lots of bright blue sky overhead.

I don't think I'm seeing blue casts across the board with all shots from this lens, but I'm still judging and testing.

I have learned a lot about removing colour-casts however, and that has been immensely useful and interesting (so thanks for setting in motion that chain of events!) I now have at least three different methods for detecting and removing colour casts - not all of which I'm 100% happy with, but given a bit of 'manual overriding', I think I'm probably getting the hang of it!

Here's the last image, altered to remove the blue cast using a mostly-manual 'Curves' alteration to lower the blue channel at two points in the midtones and highlights:




I've also taken on board Kris's ideas and posted this to Flickr at 800px width, to avoid the forum-resizing. Thanks, Kris - I didn't realise it was that easy! I thought Flikr only took the sizes offered as downloads, and hadn't had time to experiment with it yet (I only joined Flickr to get these photos up! )

I may yet try out Photobucket, Terry, but I read up on comparisons between the two before joining, and got the general impression that Flikr was more 'pro' (or at least 'photo-hobbyist') and less 'social-networky', 'repository-for-holidy-snaps' than Photobucket, but of course, this could be nonsense, and may not make a blind bit of difference to their usefulness merely as hosting sites. TBH, I don't really like *either* of those sites much. Can't stand Yahoo (Flickr's owner) either, which doesn't help!

Anyway - is the above shot better, or have I blown it too far the other way? Thanks again for all the advice and kind comments.

Bizarre... I seem to have gained an extra vote this morning - since the poll result was called!

Has the poll been locked off? I can't tell, because I've already voted.

I'm guessing my DA L 18-55mm AL kit lens on my K-x is the same as Lowela's. If so, it has no aperture ring - only a zoom ring and a focus ring. Consequently, no, it won't work at all well with extension tubes that have no electronic aperture-control contacts.

I have an old 2x teleconverter which also has no contacts (similar in many respects to the extension tubes above) - and I tried this with my aperture-ringless DA L 55-300mm lens (sister lens to the kit lens above) the other day... and it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot, sad to say.

On the K-x it is also on the Menu button, Rec. Mode page 4, Memory, sub-page 1, EV Compensation.

As I mentioned, by default, it remembers the last setting, even after a power-off. I have thought about changing it round so that it forgets, but I've kinda got used to it now! I will only trip myself up again if I change it now! Murphy's Law, eh?