Hear, hear.

Actually, I wouldn't mind paying to be able to get rid of it.

I don't frequent the other forum much, although I've been looking a bit more recently. But getting more screen width to look at pictures etc is really nice.

Their business model is different, of course, but it has a lot in its favour. A conscience-based donations system with extra features if you donate (I haven't yet!), and what appears to be a lot less censorship.

I wonder if it was tagged wrong if it was really just advertising?

JR's review of the 31 Limited, and the Q firmware articles aren't PUP only, whereas the Star Trail article is.

The impression I get is that anything in the 'Latest News and Articles' section that shows Pentax in a good light, and might encourage people to buy stuff, is free to all ... but that anything they perceive as 'added value' is PUP only.

It's fair enough, since they're a business, after all. But IMO it's a bit misguided, since there's so much free tutorial material out there on tinternet.

I don't know if the articles have improved - when I subscribed to the mag, they were always a bit lightweight for me, so I let my sub lapse. They'd have to be damn good to make it worth paying for, and I've heard nothing to suggest they are.

Me too, as does Ralf Prien (was Prieni here). He has a superb minimalist seascape with the same sort of 'horizontal lines' theme as we have going on here.

Cool. You're obviously on a roll..

Next stage, then, is to come up with some pretentious spiel to go with it as a caption.

Yes.... 'flat uninteresting sky and lack of foreground interest' comes to mind

Only if you clone out the contrail

Why is it called a Beauty Dish?

Something to do with the light being more flattering for portraits?

I'd be quite pleased if I'd created it - it's got a nice mix of geometrical abstractness and reality. But with a $4m price tag, meh.

Especially since to create the clean lines, he cloned out the bits in the background that he didn't like, as I mentioned earlier, but here's the link I found again..

Tate article...

[quote="link above"]Gursky digitally erased buildings on the far side of the river from his picture. This manipulation enhances the image visually, giving it more formal coherence. Rather than the sense of a specific place, the picture conveys an almost Platonic ideal of a body of water traversing as landscape. Gursky talks about this image in terms of its contemporaneity, saying, ‘I wasn’t interested in an unusual, possibly picturesque view of the Rhine, but in the most contemporary possible view of it. Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ; a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river’ (quoted in ‘... I generally let things develop slowly’, Andreas Gursky: Fotografien 1994-1998, p.ix).
[/quote]I mean, puhlease...

(I have no qualms about slagging it, and its price tag. If someone had paid me $4m for one of my pictures, I wouldn't give a damn what anyone thought of it . Of course, if any no-name tog had taken it, no one would be paying that for it.)

Last night when I was messing about outside chasing the moon across the sky at 500mm, the Eye-Fi really came into its own.

My vantage point was underneath my office window, and my router is in the office.

So I took a few pics, sauntered upstairs, and watched the last of them uploading.

Then I checked the exposures, sauntered back downstairs, and took a few more.

Convenient, or what

Loving it.

Well yes, I'd agree

My initial post was intended as a bit tongue-in-cheek, really.