Does this mean "The whole frame" ?

Have you actually established that you need a circular polariser?

Linear polarisers work fine (both metering and AF) with the K10D - maybe they do with the K100D as well.

Worth finding out before lashing out on the expense of a CP at all.

You may not need the circular polariser with the K10D.

I have two linear polarisers (a 72 mm Hoya and a Cokin P), and the metering and AF seem to work just fine with my K10D.

I was very surprised to discover this, given the received wisdom, but very relieved not to have to splash out on a CP.

You summed it up in your comment on it. The photo entirely reflected your comment, so there wasn't much else to say.

That's my theory anyway - once you pointed out how peaceful the shot is, there was less for us to think about and reflect on. That photograph completely does its job. For my money, it's close to being the best of the bunch because of that alone.

I actually think Kemal had the right idea initially, with his set of pictures. He offered them without comment or explanation, leaving those that wanted to comment to do so. I'd have liked to be put out of my misery a little earlier, but there we are.

Very much agree with this. In so many shots of this ilk there's the inevitable lumpy thing in the near foreground which I think often looks contrived.

But the wispy swirls of water around the rocks (particularly in the second one) and the highlights from the sun bringing out the details on their top edges mean that they add a great deal in their own right, rather than being just something from the textbook.

I'd be really pleased if I'd taken these.

Had a second look now. I think maybe in the B&W shot it would be better to rotate it anticlockwise a couple of degrees so that the central line is perfectly vertical. The symmetry is really important in that shot so a little effort to make it perfect would be well spent.

Apart from that I've got nothing to add, really.

Really nice work. Like them a lot.

Ok, first thoughts...

The foreground in the bay shot (yellow flowers and random cactus) looks a bit messy compared with the balance of the tree/sky/sea/forest combination which I like, so overall I suspect you'd have been better off crawling a bit further forward to get a bit more beach instead. Like the colours though - I thought it was an HDR effort to begin with.

A bit of unwanted flare perhaps, making the sun a bit misshapen in the shoreline ones with the low sun, but it's not offensive (try looking at the sun - you won't perceive the disc that it is!!). It's very hard indeed to do into-sun shots, and I still like them very much.

Not sure why you've done that elliptical soft focus thing on the left side of the kids in the pool though. A tighter crop might be better. I like the composition, though - the ellipse of the curves from the ripples complements the the one formed by the hug, which is nice.

I think I agree with Mac and I'd crop off the top coloured bits above the blue in the foot shot.

Apart from that, though, I like all of these, particularly the shoreline ones. The colours are lovely, and the right bits are sharp.

Good job.

Maybe I'll have another go tomorrow at finding stuff to moan about...

Do you have dates for these, just out of interest?

I think your reasons are probably different from Kemal's. But I can only speculate on either, so it would be inappropriate to do so.

Nevertheless, an internet forum is a very artificial way of interacting. There's no body language, nor tone of voice, both very powerful ways of knowing whether we've been misunderstood, or inadvertently spoken out of turn.

So I think it's everyone's responsibility to do as much as we can neither to say more than we mean, nor infer more than is written. And give people the benefit of the doubt, since I can't imagine there are many genuinely unpleasant people here. It's much more likely that any actual offense is accidental, than deliberate.

I'm getting very tired of people reading an awful lot more into what I write than is there, and then bandying accusations around based on what they've read into it, rather than what I actually say.

I haven't made any assumptions at all about what is good enough for anybody. All I did was express my opinion that I thought they were fine at 1280, and guessed that was big enough for the majority. I didn't know that merely stating a view contrary to someone else's was quite such an offense.

I also suggested a simple compromise solution which would allow the minority with smaller screens to see them perfectly sized for their browser.

As it happens, if the poll is accurate, there's an almost 2:1 majority with 1280 or bigger. I think that makes your accusations of my talking nonsense rather unreasonable (all I said was that 1280 was most common, not universal), but that aside, I am a little surprised that as many as 36% (at the moment) are still using resolutions less than 1280. I think that is certainly a big enough minority for people here to post pictures that will display Ok down to 1024, and I will in future.