[quote="Unlocker"]Were it this one?

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Free-Halton-Air-show-7373
[/quote]Sadly, no - I found that one (eventually). Thanks for trying..

There was something about metering for the grass in the one I'm remembering.

Help!

Trying to use the new forum search to find a thread from a few months back, but compared with the old search, the new one seems to be pants. Although it does allow some of the so-called advanced options, it doesn't give me the results I want, and there's no "show as posts" option.

I've mucked about for 15 minutes or so, now, trying various combinations of keywords - all to no avail. I used to be able to find what I wanted very quickly.

It was a thread where someone quite experienced with airshow photography gave some very useful hints on exposure. I'm going to Farnborough tomorrow, so I really wanted to re-read that thread.

Can anyone remember it, or who posted the info?

Many thanks to anyone that could post a link.

The clue to the answer lies in the word "suspect". It is conjecture, not fact.[/quote]While I'm on a pedantic roll, I might suggest that the construction of your sentence implies that the 'suspecting' is that it's 'down to', not that it's a suspected fact.


That aside, who writes whatever it is that enables ACR to read PEF files?

Is it Adobe, based on a PEF specification from Pentax, or is it Pentax, who write a plug-in, according to a plug-in specification from Adobe?

Either way, if Adobe rendered PEFs in an inferior way, I can't help thinking that Pentax would have a moan at Adobe and/or make sure the Pentax community was aware of it.

I thank you, with no less sincerity than your kindness.

You're a bad man, Mr Bridge.

So more than 100%, but less than 110%?

You might find this article helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

All packed up - I'll try and get them into the post today.

I must admit, I expected them to go for a lot less than that!

Teleconverters have lenses in them, and multiply the focal length of the lens you attach by some multiple - 1.4x, 1.7x, or 2x, typically.

At the expense of some optical quality, they are a compact and inexpensive way of using a lens you already have, as one of longer focal length.

Extension tubes, like TCs, fit between the lens and the camera, but that's where the similarity ends. They have no optics, so don't degrade the image, and as I said earlier, just move the lens further away from the camera. This effectively moves the point of closest focus closer to the lens, so you can get much closer to the subject, and hence get a bigger image on the sensor.

I took this picture of a money spider with a 50mm F1.7 lens, using very similar tubes - and hand held, so it is possible

The development team has certainly been very responsive, and deserves credit for the speed with which fixes have been implemented.

But in fairness, I do think that many of us that value the community here have also worked hard, and deserve recognition for the efforts we've put in to understand, and then articulate the early problems - which were considerable.

Just to put it in perspective, our efforts come with no cost to the site owners. Contract systems testers can earn £1500 a week or more on commercial IT projects.

It always did this. I was forever having to cut and paste smilies about.

It would be very nice if they could fix this, I agree. vBulletin always inserts smilies at the cursor position .