Oops, spoke too soon.

John, my opinion is that on a C&C thread, it's nice for contributors to make posts that help the community. I'm not insisting that anyone agrees or disagrees with that opinion, I'm just expressing it. I'm not making threats, or using foul language.

Please don't tell me this is inappropriate?

You might not like my tone, but suggesting that there's actually any aggression in what I said is simply ludicrous, but let me put it plainly.

If you want to say thanks, say thanks.

If you say thanks, but at the same time post a fantastic image, clearly fifty times better than the rest that have been posted, without giving the slightest hint of anything that would help the community, the obvious inference is that you're showcasing.

Showcasing is fine in the gallery. It's also fine if, by showing what you've done, it also contributes something and allows the community to benefit.

But by saying "here's my image, it's obviously miles better than any of the rest around here, and if you want any more information about it, go and search", is not quite the same.

If you think that's 'aggressive', then I'm sorry. I'm just trying to speak plainly. Obviously, it's just my opinion, and you're free to disagree. That's one of the great things about a forum. People are free to express opinions, and others are free to agree or disagree, and take whatever they like from what they read.

Thanks for posting your image - it certainly gives us something to aspire to.

With respect, you can hardly be surprised if a different purpose is inferred, otherwise why use the opportunity to showcase something that is clearly enormously superior to the rest of our meagre efforts?

If you've benefited from the processing tips, it would have been nice to show the before and after processing of the image concerned, and it would have been even nicer if you'd felt minded to share a little more of the detail of how you took it.

I have no experience with telescopes, yet I'd love to be able to create an image like this, so a little more information about the setup would have been much appreciated.

Forgive my ignorance, but what effective focal length does the lens and eyepiece give you? Is it the sort of thing that can be purchased without great cost? Is it easy to set up, or is a specialist adaptor required?

Of course, I could have just kept the editing details secret... maybe I'm just hoping for a bit too much of the community spirit here.

Well, she's very brave, stripping off in the middle of October!

Firstly, I think 14 pictures is way too many to post if you're expecting comments in detail. Two, or three max - otherwise you're just expecting too much of people's time.

I'll have a go, though. I know nothing about glamour photography from personal experience, but I'll just make a few comments as they occur to me.

To be honest, I find the background very distracting in almost all of these. It's neither sharp enough to be a feature of the composition, nor blurred enough to really focus the attention on the model.

I think #4 would be Ok in this regard if you cropped to exclude the grassy bits on the right, and very carefully cloned out the tree tops poking out above the block.

I'm also struggling not to be distracted by the slanting lines in the background of the latter ones.

I like the pose in the first one, but it's spoiled by the harsh shadow under her chin, and the way you can't see her eyes.

I almost like #11, the slanting background aside, but her right arm position looks a little contrived, and although her face is nice, as soon as the eye moves down to the second most important feature of the photo, the annoying half-unfolded waistband of her knickers spoils the line there.

The exposure in #11 is nice, though, unlike #13 and #14 which have far too much fill-in flash.

I almost like #12, too - the presence of the fence makes the background less annoying, somehow, since the fence and the hedge are now relevant to the shot. The sticking up bits of the top of the hedge spoil it though, since they distract from her hair (which is gorgeous) and her face.

Some of them are verging on unflattering, in particular #5. I can't help thinking that it's not ideal to make a slim girl's tummy look fatter than her bust.

Sorry not to be more positive, but they don't do much for me, and the foliage in the background I find quite infuriating.

It makes me realise how hard it must be to do glamour well!

Was that the going rate everywhere?

That is simply eye-watering.

Are they that much cheaper, though?

Actually, fair enough - if that's genuine stock for the 540, it's a lot cheaper than SRS. I only looked at SRS since they're usually so competitive.

Not quite such a premium over the Metz then, there.

I suppose £340 vs £270 isn't outrageous, for the usual brand markup. I'd get the Metz, now, I think, if I was buying new, given its additional features and firmware upgradability.

My Settings > Profile information

I don't think this comparison makes any sense at all. The 540 has existed for a lot longer than the 645D.

It would be fair enough to compare the £400 price of the 540 with the £1000 price of the K-5, but not with a recently-introduced camera of a different format which has increased the price at the top end by a factor of ten.

The most expensive Canon flash at SRS is the Speedlite 580EX, at £375.

This is cheaper (absolutely) than the AF540, and also relatively, compared with the price of the 7D (not the 5D, since we're comparing like with like).

Interestingly, it seems that if you're travelling yourself, you can bring goods back (from your own trips) worth up to £390 without paying tax or duty.

But my point isn't so much about UK prices vs US or HK ones, it's about the enormous premium specifically on Pentax-branded flashes, also relative to the cost of the cameras.