Pete, I'll say one thing for you, you take criticism incredibly well!!

I'm humbled by the way you can take it on the chin, come back for more, and still stay so good-humoured.

So respect to you for that.

Another thing - I'm not an expert, not a pro, and my opinions of stuff I see are no more than that - opinions.

Point taken. I think in that situation rather than including the top, I'd have gone for a more close up shot of her face, so that as much of the top as possible was excluded. But if you're going to keep the top in shot, it needs to lie smoothly on her, so that it doesn't spoil the way she looks, and doesn't act as a distraction.

I'd also have ensured that the background was completely out of focus so that more attention was drawn to her. She has lovely skin, AFAICT from the two shots you posted, and the quality of soft light on skin can be very captivating.

Very true. Maybe pick one thing to practise at a time, and concentrate on that, rather than try and do a lot in one session. Practise seeing, though rather than just looking.

Well. Let me say first of all that so far, Pete, I've tried to be constructive.

I've attempted to offer some form of defence from the onslaught of George's accurate but somewhat biting comments.

But in all honesty, I get the feeling that you're young and enthusiastic, with more of an inclination to talk than listen, do rather than think, and press that shutter release rather than hold back and actually think about what the camera's pointing at.

In isolation, none of these things is bad. But I don't get the impression that you're learning a great deal from the attempts of people here to give honest feedback at the same time as encouraging you to really get into this photography thing that you seem to be so excited about.

FWIW, I think she's a nice looking girl, in a top that is entirely inappropriate for outdoor portrait photography. It has a fluffy, dressing-gown look about it that would be great in a bathroom, but to my mind, looks silly out in a forest.

In the second shot, its crumpled look is entirely unflattering, and it's disrespectful to your model to display her in public like that. You add insult to injury with the random sunlit top-of-head effect.

I would suggest, that, rather than posting a couple of shots like this, you take a hundred or so, think carefully about every one, choose the best five, discuss them carefully with the model herself (since she's your friend, not your employee), and see what she thinks.

Then, when you have a few shots that you and she feel truly capture something special, with backgrounds that don't distract or annoy, post them for critique. And maybe preface your post with your own, considered opinion of as much about the images that you feel able to assess.

I see what you mean now. Yes, I agree, it does appear that the angle of view can change quite a bit while focusing.

As you say, not particularly a problem in the sort of use it's likely to get.

I think your review is fair, now that I've had the lens for a couple of months.

I haven't experienced the flare problems, nor found the viewfinder image particularly dim, despite using it as a MF lens quite a bit.

I paid £80 for mine, and for a general purpose lens it's great. I haven't measured its sharpness objectively, and the out-of-focus shots I've had with it have all been my fault.

You say "Close focusing ability is amazing for a lens of this type, but the payoff does seem to be significant focal length changes when focusing" - did you mean "significant focus changes when changing focal length"!

I've certainly found the latter to be the case, but in practice it's not a problem.

I took http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP2756-1s.jpg with it, wide open.

I'd appreciate any comments on the SMC PENTAX-FA 3.8-5.6 28-200, especially in comparison with the Sigma PK/A 28-200 F4-5.6 MF zoom.

I've had the latter for many years, and it's given fantastic service, but I'm wondering if this Pentax 28-200 is any good.

Pete, have you experimented with the in-camera sharpness settings, or have you just left it in default?

Comparing the total number of Pentax DSLRs out there with the number that post on one specific forum about one specific topic, and then going on to use that comparison to say anything at all about what constitutes a majority is just a nonsense.

It may be true that the majority of Pentax DSLR users are perfectly happy with the default JPG sharpness, or it may not.

But rather than seizing on the one questionable assertion in Pete's post to make another tiringly snide remark:

, it would have been nice to address the rest of his post, since I thought he made some very relevant points, and it does seem to be true that the issue of sharpness is one raised as a criticism, whether justified or not, of Pentax cameras.

If those posting on DPReview really are the devil incarnate, as some would have you believe, there's nothing wrong to my mind in having a balanced discussion about sharpness here.

I hang out on an number of forums, as I expect most of us do. And one of the things that happens is that people sometimes post things that aren't of interest to all.

Universally, however, I find those that carp on about how uninteresting other people's posts are, even less interesting, despite the fact that the curmudgeonly grumpiness that usually goes along with the carping can be entertaining in its own way.

I've only been here a short time but it's nice to see Peter E making his journey from film to digital. I'm not offended by his occasional diary entry along the way.

Couldn't agree more.

Although if the seventeenth twig up from the left was a bit darker it would be better too. And lose the bloke on the right's bald patch while you're about it...

... oh, and he should be wearing Gap jeans, not FCUK.

Joking apart, I do think this raises what must be a very old debate, but one that I'm only just coming to now that I'm firmly in the digital world.

Where does composition stop and painting begin?

Does competence with Photoshop negate incompetence with the camera?

Others are far more expert than I am on the subject of getting the whites right.

But I'm curious as to why you framed the shots with the edge of the tree trunk splitting her in half both times.

For me it rather spoils them, since to my mind the background distracts from the actual subject.