Ok, fair point. I can see there are situations where you wouldn't want an image to be grabbable simply by 'right click and save as'.

I'm not a Flash programmer, but presumably all the animations are optional. So it would be easy enough to build a Flash-based site as a set of clickable thumbnails. Would you then not get the best of both worlds?

I guess the jazzy fades and dissolves make the pictures more like a movie. Movies are easy to watch; you don't have to expend effort looking around the frame finding the points of interest. We like doing that kind of thing, but maybe people with no interest in photography don't so much - maybe they like being led through the experience.

If the site designer is skilled enough in picking the mood music, and presenting the pictures consistent with that, I can just about imagine it being appealing to muggles.

If Pete's trying to flog his pictures to non-photographers, maybe he's got it right after all.

Just out of interest, is there anyone at all that actually prefers Flash-based animations (such as this slide show) to simple clickable thumbnails?

It loads Ok. The slide shows work Ok.

Now for the 'etc'...

I had the music turned off, since if I want to look at pictures, I just want to look, not have to listen to someone else's choice of music.

I couldn't find any way of seeing the pictures bigger than the ones in the slide shows. Am I missing something?

I don't particularly like the fade effect, since it makes pausing on one shot a bit fiddly.

Personally, I prefer no fancy effects (like the fade). I also don't like being forced to see all the pictures, in order - so I'd rather have thumbnails that I can just click on to see a larger version, in the order I want.

You'll also probably get a ton of spam, having your email address as a simple link like that - email addresses in plain view are harvested by spammers.

Very true. There are two in Kingston, for instance; one large, one small.

When I bought my K10D, they had a "buy now pay later" deal on, but when I picked the camera up, I didn't have the relevant documents on me, so I paid by CC, and then went back a few days later to get my CC refunded, and the credit agreement arranged.

I'd bought it in the bigger store, so I went back there. In true Monty Python style, "the man didn't have the right form", so they phoned through to the smaller store, which did.

Having had my CC refunded, they then trusted me to walk round the corner to the smaller store to do the paperwork - I could easily have 'forgotten', or indeed got two for the price of one - the phone call must have been misunderstood, since they tried to give me another K10D when I completed the credit agreement!!

Too damn honest, me

Their 'updates' page at http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=53209

.. refers to "New RAW processing" in the version they brought out on April 24.

I downloaded the most recent version (build 36.40), and to my great delight discovered that it now displays PEFs properly.

The version I had before (build 35.97) would try to display the PEF, but would hang between the preview and final display of the image.

Haven't really tested it out yet, but after a very quick comparison of the JPG and RAW that you get when shooting in RAW+, the RAW certainly looks nicer, even in the unedited Picasa display.

Out in October, apparently..

http://tinyurl.com/yw6ec9

I don't think it was daft at all.

It's one of these decisions where if cost is not the issue, get the best. In your case, "best" included having not even compatibility doubts, let alone actual issues.

If cost is the issue, there sometimes has to be either compromise on quality, or delay.

In my case, the compromise I'm currently agonising over is whether to get the Pentax AF540 flash, or its much cheaper Sigma equivalent. I'll probably get the Sigma, unless I can find a compelling reason why not, in which case I'll probably have to just wait.

Please could someone out there with a Linear Polariser and a K100D stick it on the front of an AF lens, and let us know whether the metering and the AF work Ok?

(Reason I'm asking, Rae, is that the K10D works just fine, both metering and AF, with both my Linear Polarisers, despite all the received wisdom that says LPs muck up metering and/or AF. CPs are much more expensive than LPs, so it's worth finding out for sure before going to the expense of a CP).

Possibly so

Have you actually tried the higher sharpness settings in the K10D?

I have, and I think it's horrible. If that's what people want, let them find a brand that does it.

If the camera forced it on me??? Yuck, yuck yuck. Why on earth do you want it? Maybe the shots that seem sharper that you've seen are sharper, nothing to do with the in-camera sharpening. I don't know. I'd just prefer to have the control. If I didn't there are plenty of other cameras that give you less.

Of course, you're right. I was just teasing.

I have to say, however, that I think they are a lot more forgiving over there. They drool over a lot of shots that I think are rubbish*. I'd much rather risk George's acid tongue and John's stereoscopic electron microscope (he probably calls it his 'eyes', ha ha), than be lulled into a false sense of competence elsewhere.

Great stuff, well done.

No, I haven't won anything. I haven't entered anything, either. I haven't produced anything good enough yet to even think about entering any competitions.


*Edit: I also think that there are some fabulous shots, as good as any I've seen here. But they do seem to compliment the mediocre more than here. As far as I can tell. Mediocre, in my unqualified view. Heavens, it's just an opinion, Ok?