In case any potential film 'togs are interested, 7dayShop are having a sale, and selling FujiChrome Velvia 50 for £2.95 for a roll of 36.

1700 and going strong. I don't even hear the racket the scanner makes now, it's such a part of my working environment.

Another thing I've noticed is the permanent crick in my neck I seem to have, looking at all the portrait shots displayed in landscape in Picasa. No orientation sensor in scans!!!

I'm *so* not going back to film

I do agree with this.

But spare a thought for the frustration of those that have had to do the "polite enlightenment" thing, time after time after time.

We all mean well, but sometimes exasperation does get the better of us.

I think Peter's exasperation, followed by Luke's very reasonable reaction, followed by Peter's apology is a perfect example of the way we can slip occasionally, but still remain friends.

You need to be a bit careful focusing with the old 10-20, as I commented here.

Not sure whether there'd be a difference with HSM - it's still the AF detectors in the body that decide whether there's any work to do.

Personally, I find the old 10-20 focuses pretty fast. The barrelling below 12mm, and the need for AF care aside, I find it very good - at least given its price. I'm not planning to change.

Indeed. At first glance it makes you look almost (but not quite) a mincer of words, George.

But I feel it tails off slightly. Just a tad, a smidgeon, if you will. 'Nauseating' is good. 'Clichéd', very good - some real promise building. 'Unimaginative', though - while accurate, it doesn't quite fulfil the early potential.

I think, on balance, it still leaves you the final arbiter of concise bite.

Ah, if only we'd never evolved to see colour.

Or anything else, for that matter, that distracts from immutable shape and form.

Respect to Dr M.

It's not like a bit of plastering, where you can get the money back, and pay another contractor to redo the work.

Once the day's gone, it's gone.

"Oh dear, your record of your special day is all gone - sorry, here's a refund"

... doesn't quite cut it really. If what appears to have happened really did, it's not like just a few shots got screwed up.

Do pro togs have insurance against this sort of thing?

They are, and he seems to have gone quite a bit more 'trad'. Nowhere near as much in the way of wacky, trendy, slanty angles. I like it a lot more now.

He doesn't seem to have found the razor-eyed proof-reading skills he had available when he used to hang out with us though....

Actually, one of the reasons Peter's comment made me laugh so much was the irony of the fact that Pete's pictures were (latterly, anyway) much, much better than the shockingly bad ones in the BBC article.

Being something of a traditionalist when it comes to weddings, I never particularly liked his style, but I wouldn't deny that there's definitely a market for it, and as George says, he probably does a pretty good job for it.

Another first for Pete, as I recall, is that he was the first of the defectors to Nikon that caused much in the way of excitement here.

I wish him and his business well.

Peter, you're going to hell !!!!!

(and so am I - I laughed and laughed, and even as I type, I'm still chuckling)