Yes. In terms of the actual feature set, the upgrades are cumulative, that is to say, each includes all the previous additions, and adds to them.

It's computer programming, at the end of the day, so I expect it's not actually impossible for them to introduce bugs with a later version. But it would be something of a scandal if it happened, and they'd doubtless fix it pretty sharpish.

But other than the removal, with version 1.2 IIRC, of an undocumented 'back door' that gave access to some of the very low level factory adjustments, there's no evidence that it has happened so it's not a significant concern.

Don't be ashamed to be the former, and being so does not imply the latter.

Anyone that says they haven't been (more than once, probably) is either lying, or knows much less than they imagine.

They don't exactly bend over backwards to make this stuff easy.

However, for once, the answer is easy...

No. You can if you want (although there's no advantage in doing so), or you can go straight to 1.3.

Just use a fully charged battery, and follow the instructions to the letter.

Welcome!

It's very unlikely to give the same moire pattern, though, since the effective dpi you get by taking the photo and enlarging it is very unlikely to be the same as the scanner dpi. And it's also very easy to change it by varying the distance.

So it might be better or worse I guess.

Couldn't you photograph it, rather than scan it?

The thing is, a montage where the originals don't overlap, and where there is no separating frame between them, is no different from a triptych with no frame. As soon as montages of any kind are permitted, it becomes almost impossible to have a simple rule.

I still think (and my apologies to Don for not noticing that his earlier suggestion was materially the same as mine) that since impact from size, and impact from number, are mutually limiting, we'd be better off with a maximum size for the entry.

And/or of course, any additional rules that the previous week's winner cares to specify.

My inclination, reading this, was to agree with you. How could it be fair to submit three pictures to others' one, thereby achieving (all things being equal) three times the impact?

Then I looked at the triptych in question, and found the individual pictures too small to really appreciate.

I ended up feeling that any benefit of having several pictures is cancelled by the fact that to see them on a screen, they have to be that much smaller.

So I think the rule, such as it might be, could be a maximum size (say 1000 pixels on any edge), rather than a maximum mumber of images.

All that said, I do incline towards a genuinely level playing field - one frame. Although having been a lot more impressed than I was expecting, when I saw the "Turner Prize Retrospective" at the Tate the other day, maybe more, not less, liberalism is a good idea.

Thanks for this feedback, guys. Interesting - since it looks completely black on my monitor, even if I switch it to super-bright "movie" mode.

I'm using an old, but still very sharp, colour-calibrated 17 inch CRT monitor (Iiyama Visionmaster pro) set to a resolution of 1280x1024. However, I've long suspected that it's not as bright as some of the newer LCD displays, since when I run one of these calibration programs, the darkest things tend to be invisible.

So I can understand that if I adjust a picture so that it looks right here, then on a much brighter monitor it might look noisy. Also, I often find that people post pictures in which I can't see the shadow detail on my monitor.

It'll become more of an issue for me, as more and more people become used to looking at pictures on bright monitors. I guess I'll have to go with the flow at some point..

EDIT: Just had a PM from someone with a newish LCD monitor who can't see the noise!

Are some brands much brighter than others? Could we have some sort of straw poll of monitor brands/models and whether the noise is visible?

Congratulations for such detailed judging of such a mammoth number of entries!

Thanks for this feedback too - my concern is that I can't see any of the noise you're referring to on my monitor, and if I go back to Photoshop I have to turn the brightness way up to see any as well.

Could I trouble you (or someone else that sees the picture as noisy) elaborate a little on what you're seeing? (Here's a link to it again so that you don't have to trawl back through the entries.)

Melbourne river front, showing Flinders Street Station

It's not like that at all - it's just a really comfortable way of holding the camera, and I agree with Xbow - it is a shame there isn't a second attachment that would mean you could have one without having to add to the bulk underneath.

However, as these photos hopefully show, it's really not intrusive, and I only take it off the camera these days to change the battery. I keep meaning to cut the redundant four inches or so off the dangly end of the strap, but I haven't got round to it. And you can let go completely and let it just hang when your hand gets a bit tired - it's still completely secure and comfortable.

I should get a commission...