I *so* know what you mean. I'm chucking stones around in my own glass house, I have to confess.

My speciality is, I try something just as a one-off, and then leave it set, and end up missing a bunch of shots because I forget to unset whatever it was.

That kind of thing is annoyingly easy to do. I reckon the one 'mode' that would be useful would be a 'muppet' mode that the camera can never switch on in. So you could muck about with the settings in muppet mode, safe in the knowledge that at least when it powers back up you default to not being a muppet.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this were the reason. If you have the shutter speed slow enough to get decent prop blur, of course you're likely to get shake.

Sorry to get on my favourite hobby horse yet again, but the whole subject of SR does seem to get a disproportionate amount of anecdotal, unthinking, evidence-free nonsense cropping up on forums.

The notion that the accelerometers can be fooled into detecting shake when there isn't any is probably wrong in all (ha - famous last words, eh!!) cases, not just the now-legendary 'stationary tripod' case.

In particular, I can't see how actual shake, superimposed on to smooth, constant-speed movement would be detected by the camera any differently from shake superimposed on no movement at all, which is exactly what SR is for.

Of course, with aircraft approaching you and then receding, you have to pan more quickly and then less quickly as it passes by, but that acceleration and deceleration is at least one, probably two orders of magnitude less than the sort of accelerations SR is designed for, so can be ignored I should think.

Leave SR on, you know you want to!!

Well if you're going to go in this direction, why not go the whole hog and make it properly demonic - make the whole cornea red around the iris.

To me, it seems a little pointless to light and compose a portrait like this if its purpose is to show the bloodshot eye. If you wanted to illustrate a possible side effect of LASIK surgery, it would be better to go in really close so that you can see it properly. The rest of the face is irrelevant in that case.

Conversely, if the purpose is the portrait, then the bloodshot eye distracts, and unless you caption the photo with a suitable explanation, will leave the viewer wondering why.

My preference is usually for pictures that don't need explanatory text to make sense of them. So for me, it's fit for neither purpose as it stands. It might be worth cloning out the red and seeing what it's like just as a portrait. The 'tache adds a fair bit of texture to the shot, so perhaps isn't quite sharp enough. Also, the contrast between the lit and unlit sides is perhaps a touch too drastic - there's virtually no detail at all on the unlit side.

Glad the surgery was a success though

This sort of thing needs to have a certain credibility about it for it to have the right effect.

It's the pen, I'm afraid. No musician would be writing notes on sheet music using a fountain pen, and if the pen is being used for scripting the music, it would have to be manuscript rather than printed music.

So the pen spoils the composition for me, by making the whole look contrived. A pencil would be better, since it would be completely believable.

Other than that, it's er, awesome...

(Edit: although, is there a cloning error in the top left hand corner, now that the vignette's been removed? That lone treble clef looks a bit random.)

Leaving aside the fact (evident from your gallery) that you aren't at all a beginner, I think this point warrants comment.

You're not the first to cite lack of experience as a reason for not offering a reason for liking or disliking a picture, and there's just no need to feel that way.

I'm quite sure that if you were to ask any of the most experienced photographers that contribute here, lack of experience would never be a reason they would give for not wanting to hear someone's opinion of a photograph.

A fresh pair of eyes, not yet jaundiced or overloaded with technical stuff, can still see, and still have a completely valid opinion of the picture.

Do you have to be an artist to appreciate art? Or a photographer to have a picture trigger an emotion in you?

Of course not.

Critique does not require lots of long photographic buzzwords to be valid.

All it needs is for you to say why it strikes you as it does. Sometimes that takes a little thought, since we often don't think much about why something evokes a particular feeling.

But it's valuable thought, since understanding why you like (or dislike) a picture makes it easier to take pictures you like in future.

A general guideline would be, don't say "I like it". Say "I like it because...".

Or of course, "I don't like it because...".

Some of the best photos I've seen I've really hated.

There are several issues currently, which discourage me from commenting on people's photos.

One is that there's so much "great, amazing, awesome, fab, fantastic, excellent" around these days, that there's very little I could say that wouldn't sound incredibly negative by comparison, even if I quite liked the shot - which I often do.

Another is the issue that George raises. I have quite a fast internet connection, so the loading speed isn't at all an issue for me. But I still find no inclination to comment on a post containing more than one or perhaps two pictures - where would I start? It's hard enough to provide a considered view of one picture, let alone the essay that would be needed for many.

Another situation where I would never, ever comment is where people say "I really like this photo, what do you think?". Especially if the picture is of some goofy child that is quite rightly the best looking kid in the universe to the proud parent, but of less interest to me. But apart from that, if someone declares that they like their picture, who am I to give them reasons for not liking it if I think it's lacking?

Finally, I feel more inclined to comment on people's pictures when there's evidence that they're actually asking for critique, rather than showcasing. Not that I'm against showcasing in itself - it's good to share something you're proud of - but sometimes I get the impression that images are put up for critique when the owner is really just looking for praise.

I'd be particularly likely to comment if someone posted a picture, with a critique of their own, perhaps along the lines of "I tried to achieve X, how could I have improved Y, what do people think about aspect Z of the composition/exposure/whatever". That would say to me that they were already thinking about what they'd done, and were genuinely interested in canvassing people's views.

Just a few thoughts that struck me as I read this thread. Consider or ignore according to taste.

I think it's not so much over-complication, but the wrong kind of complication.

By which I'm referring to the fripperies... all the stupid mucking about they give you options for in the camera, where anyone that is a) interested in that sort of manipulation, and b) capable of it will inevitably do it on the computer, since it's so much easier, and the result so much better.

You end up with a lot of menu options that you never use.

On the other hand, I'm all for anything that increases the actual picture-taking versatility.

It would be interesting to find out whether the stupid stuff actually stops them doing good stuff.

For instance, in-camera sepia toning and the fat/thin 'filter' (I ask you :roll - does all that bloatware they put in actually limit the amount of useful stuff they have time for? Presumably it all has to be written, tested, developed for new models etc.

How much does the crap affect release schedules?

Funnily enough, I bought this today, for my brother, which is very similar.

The one I have is a slightly different design, but it's the best £9 I ever spent on camera kit, and it's never off the camera.

Mine did, too, until I realised I had it too tight.

Try loosening it up a bit. I have mine quite loose, and there's plenty enough movement to get at all the buttons very easily. As you can see here, everything's easily accessible, yet it's still comfortable.

As you say, though, each to his own. I tried one of the £5 ones without the wrist strap, and didn't like it so much. Couldn't quite relax when it was dangling. Whereas with the wrist strap, it can't fall off.

It's not Pentax-specific, of course. Substitute Nikon or Canon where it says Pentax in the URL, and surprise, surprise...