How can that be true, and how can colour sensationalise?

That's exactly how they'd have looked if they'd been taken with colour film, or a colour dSLR.

I think any suggestion that the old B&W ones are *better*, is being influenced by the iconic and historical nature of the originals.

I'm not knocking the originals, nor their impact now, nor the emotional attachment we have to many of them.

But the images themselves would have looked like that, if taken now.

I think they're marvellous.

Why stupid?

There's the risk, obviously, that the colours chosen won't be exactly right, and getting it to look natural is part of the skill for sure. But unless you were there, and able to say "actually it wasn't quite that shade of blue...", it's hardly less natural than the B&W.

At risk of being a bit controversial and offending the purists...

If colour film (and print) had been invented first, no one would have bothered with B&W, and it certainly wouldn't have the cachet it does now.

Admittedly, B&W is a useful technique for isolating elements of form and structure from the colours that can distract, but for reporting news, what's the point?

How is the immolation shot more effective in B&W, for instance? I'd contend that it very much is not.

Sure. A macro lens of a given focal length does its magnification by letting you get closer to the subject and still be able to focus, not by doing more magnification than any other lens of the same focal length.

Since the tubes just move the lens a bit further away from the camera, they just allow you to get even closer to the subject, and still be able to focus.

However, once you get the camera very close to the subject (you'll soon discover how close) , you run into practical issues concerning focusing and lighting. You need a lot of light (or very long exposures), and depth of field is almost non-existent, so accurate focusing is hard.

No, they're just the distance in mm that the lens is moved away from the body by using that tube.

You can use any combination of the three.

But what would be the wrong in that?

People taking pictures in a public place shouldn't be news. You don't see headlines saying,

"Photographers permitted to continue taking pictures from a public place. Security guards ignored them."

The fact that it so often is news, is a consequence of the actions of the misinformed security guards, and, less often now, thankfully, police.

Not the togs.

Only just got round to watching this - class

I don't agree with those that say he was too much of an agent provocateur - my feeling is that rights are precious, and defending them is important.

He was polite, clear and calm, despite the operatives' rudeness. Good on him, I say.

One of these is now spoken for.

Buy it, and then sell the 18-135

Point of order: desiccator

Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine, I'll get back into my box now...

I wouldn't bother with foil. Just scrape a bit of the paint off till you have 7 contacts instead of 6, like this:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/Imgp2649s.jpg[/IMG]

On all three tubes, obviously

For a start, with genuinely PK-A tubes, you should set the lens to A, just as you would without the tubes.

Now, the question arises, are the tubes genuinely PK-A, regardless of what they're labelled as.

Have a very close look at the contacts on the mount side.

How many are there - 6, or 7?