Thanks.

It's on the way up Haystacks, starting at Gatescarth, via Scarth Gap. This is from Scarth Gap pass, with Haystacks behind out of shot, looking towards High Crag on the far right.

I've edited most of the half-way decent ones now, and they're here if you care to look.

Here's one to be going on with...




Any comments (on any of them) gratefully received - I really struggle with landscapes, finding more often than not that the pictures don't look like what I saw.

And I ruined a lot of the ones I took by partly burning out the sky (despite attempting not to), resulting in the vile cyan banding.

If anyone can suggest a reasonably easy way of fixing that in PhotoShop I'd be grateful - I've got a few more otherwise half decent ones.

Nice one. An excellent stir.

Pic's would also be the plural of pic', by the same argument.

I'd dispute your premise, though. It takes the "apostrophe in place of missing letters" principle too far.

The point here is that the plural of "single" used as a noun is "singles", with no apostrophe.

Then, if you wish to indicate ownership, ie, a day for singles, then it's "singles' day", as you've written it.

Apologies (but not apology's) to the OP for turning his thread into a grammar discussion. I intended only to comment on the apostrophes on his site.

Not commenting on the photos (I will when I get a moment) but for public presentation, please, please, please remove the apostrophes when pluralising 'photo'.

Apostrophes should never be used if all you're doing is creating a plural noun.

Ever.

It is always wrong to do this.

Always.

I thank you.

Thanks

I've been very pleased with it - it's a thing of beauty, though something of a beast. A pound heavier than the Sigma 400mm, not easily hand-held, at least not for long.

Here's a pic of them, both with lens hoods retracted:

Do you mean the Pentax SMC-A 400mm F5.6?

I have one, and it displays a lot less CA than the Sigma A-series 400mm F5.6.

Here's a comparison of the two at F5.6 - 100% crops with the Sigma at the top:




These were also taken with it:

I'm sure this is right, and as IceBlinker says, most people (including me) have no problems.

Always worth checking it with the test chart though - and then you can be absolutely confident that it's the workings behind the viewfinder, not in front of it, that's at fault. The former is usually easier and cheaper to fix.

Ideally this would be the case. These days, though, it seems more and more common that repair organisations are careless and lazy, preferring to fob off customers until they go away, rather than taking the matter seriously and investigating properly.

It's common enough for a camera to come back in a worse state than it went off in, for me to vote for the DIY approach with this problem, and others when it doesn't need specialist skills.

.. whose top can be freed to rotate independently of the ball/socket bit. So you don't have to lose that level horizon.

It was just a little north of Sydney, actually from the cliff at Terrigal, north of Avoca Beach.

Sorry about the juxtaposition to yours - I confess yours reminded me of mine