Fair point. I was probably being a bit too black and white earlier.

I guess it's horses for courses - if someone just posts a pic in the 'your photos' forum, no C&C particularly requested, 'nice shot', being just a positive reaction shared, is perfectly Ok.

I've been a bit sensitised, though, by reading another forum, where even specific requests for critique are met without anything specific or constructive at all. It's so anodyne that I've more or less stopped reading it.

Long may things remain as they are here, where posting up a bad pic and asking for honest opinions results in exactly that

Absolutely.

I didn't say he said it was a lame shot. I also didn't conclude anything about what he might or might not have said had he found it so. I even said (in the context of lameness), if you remember, 'Now I do know that's not what you said about any specific picture'.

I was just making a more general point. In saying what I like and don't like about certain types of critique, I wasn't making any accusations at all. Likewise my other comments about what would put me off posting photos.

You're reading a bit more into what I wrote than was actually there, I think.

In fact, I suspect we're just agreeing a bit more violently than we need to.

I never said anything about what you can think. Further, if you read anything I write here, it shouldn't take you long to realise that I abhor and despise sycophantic guff, as you eloquently refer to it, at least as much as you do - possibly more, in fact.

However, I would be very disappointed if the culture here started to change in such a way that people felt inhibited from posting pictures for critique, for fear of getting ill-thought-out and lazily expressed outcries of 'that's lame'.

Now I do know that's not what you said about any specific picture (although it was clearly your expectation, as you said), but my point is this:

Critique should be honest, not sycophantic, but it should also be specific.

"Nice shot" is exactly the sort of sycophantic guff that I (and, I imagine, you) dislike. Fortunately there's not too much of it here yet. But although not sycophantic, "Doesn't work for me" is just as bad. Translated, it means:

"I don't like it, and I can't be bothered to think about or articulate my reasons why not".

"Lame" is in the same sort of category, so I think it should be avoided.

I might post, for instance, a very clichéd picture that was, for me, very difficult to achieve, hoping for some help in improving the composition next time.

If all I got was a chorus of derision for my lack of originality, I probably wouldn't bother next time.

I've given up admitting to thoughts like this, now that I realise that living in a glass house as I do, throwing stones is unwise.

As I suggested elsewhere the other day, if we all felt inhibited from taking 'another lame shot in a park' for fear of people looking down on our dreadful lack of creativity, a lot of learning would dry up over night.

I like a lot of your pictures, Simon, but not this one, I'm afraid. My immediate reaction was "Huh?", and then when I looked closer I just didn't get it at all.

From the expanse of featureless grey in the right foreground, to the three bushy trees obscuring anything of interest in the buildings behind, to the sapling in the left foreground cutting the pool in half, seemingly for no reason, I just don't 'get' the composition at all.

The statue by the bench would be a focal point, but it's very small and indistinct, and there's nothing much of interest in the sky.

Looks too jumbled and busy for any kind of coherence to come through for me, sorry.

What did you have in mind by it?

My view, FWIW, is that if someone really wants some detailed C&C, they should post one photo.

If they want to showcase a bunch of photos, they should post a link to a gallery, with maybe a few small pictures to give a flavour, and despite being open to them, should not expect much in the way of comments.

Having dozens of photos (literally in this case) in a thread means that they load very slowly, and usually I've closed down the browser tab long before they've all loaded. And if I do wait for them to load (which I did eventually), there often isn't time to do such a large number justice - so there'd have to be something quite glaring about one of them to be able to do much more than say "nice series".

Which it is, of course

And is it definitely P-TTL?

Ok, Edwood. Find out if the flash you've got is P-TTL as follows:

- put it on the camera and switch it on
- jam your eye up to the viewfinder so that all you can see is the view through it (and close the other one)
- take a picture

Did you see a flash in the viewfinder?

The 'P' in P-TTL means "Pre" - the camera does its metering based on a so-called 'pre-flash'. Then it emits a second flash during the exposure, which is what illuminates the subject.

You see the first one in the viewfinder, but not the main one (since the mirror is up at the time).

This is how all the KxxD and KxxxD Pentax cameras work with compatible automatic flashguns.

So, can you confirm whether your Jessops one is emitting a pre-flash?

In theory yes.

In practice, have you ever actually tried to change the focus point while trying to frame a picture of a moving target?

I suppose if they were going straight for a long time, and you knew that you wanted the boats in a particular part of the frame, then it might be possible.

But both of those are big ifs.

If it is this, then it would be a good application of Quick-Shift on the lenses that have it.

It would take a bit of practice, but turning the focus-ring a fraction during the reframing after the initial lock would allow for such movement.