There we very much agree. But that is a different issue from the one of browser consistency.

With any luck the moderators will move these off topic posts off to somewhere less distracting, but I can't let this pass.

George, do you really think this is the reason for the annoying lack of consistency we get sometimes across across browsers?

Every web designer I've worked with bends over backwards to get as much cross-browser consistency as possible (and their ego is fed much better by achieving browser agnosticism), but it really isn't as simple as "all you need to do is use standard HTML".

The days of static pages are long gone, and with the degree of interactivity required these days it really is not a trivial exercise.

You must remember that someone, somewhere, has to pay to get these websites developed. In an ideal world the tools would make it all easy, but they don't. And in the absence of indefinite budgets and timescales, perfection is not available.

I have no idea of the grounds on which they accept or reject photos.

However, the boat shot struck me as a bit random. There was nothing about it that made me look at it, if you'll forgive me.

The one of the building (is it the Sydney Opera House?) was fab - a terrific bold shape with interesting detail that you get on a second look - except for the shadow, which ruins it for me.

I love the rose. They must be being very picky if the rather distracting imperfection on the left about 2/3 of the way up was what made them say no.

On this basis, though, I'm not sure I have anything I'd chance submitting.

Well done for getting some in. Could you post those too? Or links to them?

Agreed. It was just the view below that struck me as a bit extreme.

Shame to miss something good for the sake of occasionally having to use a different browser.

This strikes me as another one of those topics that would provoke outrage were it about camera equipment.

What does it matter which browser you use? What is the religious attachment to any particular one?

I use Firefox and IE, depending on my requirements. If a really cool website that I really liked only worked with Opera, I'd download it and install it, just like if there was a feature of one package that I really needed that wasn't in my usual one, I'd get it if I could afford it.

It's not even like you have to pay for either. Why not just have both, and use either according to expediency?

Depriving yourself of something that might be really good, just because it doesn't work with one thing you'd like to use more, seems a bit daft if it costs nothing.

A bit like not buying the K10D because it doesn't work properly with M-series lenses.

PS Please don't bother working your way through all the analogies and comparisons here. I know they're all rather inexact. Trust me, your life is too short, just as mine is to argue this more rigorously.

Yes, I'll try and remember to give AF-C a go, thanks. The problem I was having with AF was that with the fast-moving subjects, if I didn't have the camera pointing right at it, the AF would hunt and I'd never see the subject let alone get it in focus. So I switched to MF to capture the action, and only later discovered that I'd left the AF on spot rather than auto.

I'll try and do better...

They're cropped a bit. The two of the Yak 50 are about 3/4 frame.

The lens was a Pentax 28-200 SMC-FA F3.5-5.6. Mostly at the long end.

Compton Abbas, Dorset. About 3 miles south of Shaftesbury. The Yak 50 is based there, he was practising for a display or a competition somewhere, I guess.

Ha ha, like I noticed that at the time. I mean, yes, of course, completely intentional...

Yep. I haven't got the hang of autofocus yet (for moving subjects), so it was manually (not quite) focused. I'm already better, though, than in the days before shake reduction. I'm expecting to improve a lot, though, with practice.

Agreed. I almost didn't bother with it because of that, also the clipping.

No way. Firstly because it wasn't that way, and the purist in me doesn't like messing with photographs like that.

But there's a much more important reason why not.

Have a look more closely at the rotated version. Rotating it through 180 degrees gives the impression of a descending turn to the right. But the ailerons are now wrong - the left aileron is pointing up, and the right one down (relative to the aeroplane), which would bank it to the left. Ok, it's conceivable that he could have just reversed the ailerons, but that would be quite contrived IMO.

Whereas in the original, he really is banking left, and the position of the control surfaces is consistent with this.

A few from today. Critique welcome.