Fair enough. I stand assured.

I'm purely describing what I see. It's an entirely subjective impression, albeit one that I've attempted to give honestly, and with no other motive than to convey an impression as you requested.

If you don't like my view, please feel free to ignore it completely.

I'm not at all clear, however, how the bottom of the right ear is so sharply cut off compared with the left.

Well it's an interesting expression.

But the highlights look rather unnatural. The left eye, for instance, the tip of the left ear; the upper and lower lips, the left side of the chin, and the left side of the face between the eye and the ear.

It looks a bit like face paint - I take it that's not intentional?

To be honest, it looks to me like quite an interesting photo, overedited.

I always recommend the following rule:

Edit, save, then put it away till the next day.

Then have another look. The bits that've been over-done are a lot more obvious when you haven't looked at it for a few hours.

I speak from bitter experience...

PS... it would be good to see the original - much easier to comment on the editing.

PPS There's also some very suspect cloning gone on down the right hand side of his face (left of frame as we look at it). The cheek below the ear looks like its edge has had something of a hacking at.

It's a very interesting capture, but I'm afraid it doesn't look all that sharp to me.

And ensure the camera is using the central AF point!

The thing about BF/FF testing is that it establishes the point at which where the camera/lens combination is *actually* focused, as opposed to where the camera *thinks* it's focused.

You establish where it thinks it's focused by:

- using the centre AF point only
- ensuring that you get green-hexagon focus confirmation
- ensuring that the camera doesn't move between focusing and taking the picture

Then you find out where it's actually focused by noting the point of greatest sharpness, which the test chart makes a lot easier. The greater the depth of field, the harder this is to do, so you need as little DOF as possible - having the lens wide open, as Peter says, will ensure that the range of sharpness is minimised, and only the point of actual focus will be sharp.

This image shows the sort of result you get - with no significant BF or FF in this one. Perhaps it shows a trace of FF, but that could easily be down to slightly inaccurate camera positioning.

Technically, this isn't moaning yet. It's a combination of nostalgia and anticipation.

Well yes, but we were uncharacteristically united...

Another one????

Excellent. We had such fun last time it changed... and it seems like only yesterday...

Ah, well clearly I didn't

I have a link in my favourites, that goes directly to recent posts - I virtually never start anywhere else.

A tricky thing, marketing...

I never saw any requests for material, or of a 'guidelines for contributors' article anywhere.

Maybe I didn't look hard enough...

I think sadly, it became less and less relevant. Historically, the PU gear prices were invariably much higher than elsewhere, and the partnership deal with SRS came too late. The classified section became increasingly irrelevant as online selling grew in popularity.

The writing was on the wall, I'm afraid.

Did anything come of the PDF idea?

I do too, but sadly, the PU mag never really hit the spot for me. The reviews were never in-depth enough for me, and the technique articles all seemed similarly lightweight.

I liked JR's historical articles, but IMO there was never enough meat to keep the attention of the enthusiasts at whom it was (or should have been) aimed. A quarterly publication needs to be packed full of stuff that keeps you going till the next one, and sadly it never seemed to be.

RIP PU Mag, but I don't think I'll be lamenting its passing.