Woah, some quite amazing shots on there, especially liked the camouflage ones - several of them made me wonder what I was looking at to start with, like this one:

http://www.thomasmarent.com/cms/typo3temp/pics/2a55760997.jpg

Dan

Just checked, mine's got a black fuse cover. Just as well, my battery's charging at the moment.

Dan

George, those are feral pigeons, which, as Mr. Titchmarsh rightly mentioned, are descendants of the Rock Dove. So not sure whether the 'white bit on the back of the neck' works with them.

However, I suspect the white lump at the base of the beak won't appear for a few months...

Dan

Yes I did, but thankfully, unlike stones, they quickly bobbed back up to the surface. Pummice stones perhaps.

I'm just going to check on my battery...

Still charging.

While we're on a nature theme, here's a couple of pictures of some Harlequin ladybirds, the invasive species which has appeared in the UK in the last couple of years. Known in the US (so I'm told) as Halloween Bugs, as this time of year they invade homes in order to hibernate.






Both K10D, Sigma 105mm, ISO200, f/11, 1/60s, flash with diffuser.

There are hundreds of them at Bedfords Park Visitor Centre near Romford, if anyone's that curious about them.

Dan

Oh, all right then...

People expect baby birds to look all 'young' and speckly, like Robins and Blackbirds. Whereas pigeons (Wood Pigeons specifically), once they leave the nest, just look like adult birds, other than not having the white patch around the back of their necks, and they'll get that by the end of the summer when the moult.

So every year, people see 'baby' pigeons, they just don't realise it.

Once you notice them, you'll see that baby pigeons are even more dopey than the adults.

Dan

...and only their mother could love them...

Dan

P.S. I'm so tempted to answer the pigeon one, but I shan't.

A rhetorical question if ever I heard one!

Dan

I hadn't seen your post George, I was replying to Hot Shot's query. Just happened to mention the mixed lighting as it was (presumably) a little different to his under purely fluorescent.

But how strange that our posts are actually very similar George. Are we one and the same person? Twins seperated at birth perhaps...

(I wish my battery would hurry up and charge, so that I can get outside and actually take some pics, rather than random postings on here. )

Anyway, you can see the difference in colour balance on my pic of the girl, who was lit by a mixture of halogen and fluorescent, but the room behind here was purely fluorescent, and that has a resulting cooler, greeinsh tint.

Dan

Well, these were with my K10D, under mixed (fluorescent and halogen) lighting, ISO 400, 1/30s, f/2.4 with my FA50mm 1.4, no flash. I could post many more which I'm more than happy with, but they're of kids for which I don't have permission to post here.







So I don't see that it's a 'K10D' problem, but something in the way that you were using it. And without a more specific description of what was wrong, I don't see how we can help. And if you've just deleted all those images without figuring out how to avoid the problem in the future, then shame on you!

Dan

This is true, but before the music starts playing, it's already downloading and slowing things down. But this aside, there is the matter of whether Pete is using copyrighted material without the owner's consent. This computer doesn't have sound, so thankfully I can't tell if it's Celine Dion or not, and don't therefore have to worry about the need to gouge my eardrums out.

Just tried it on the connection at work. Took 30 seconds from clicking on the 'Enter' link to seeing pictures. This is a (poor) broadband connection. I would consider it too long, that's why I said before that a non-flash alternative, not replacement, would be good.

I've just re-read the thread, and over all, I felt the comments were positive. Plenty of good wishes for Pete's success too. There were two sticking points, the flash issue, and accessability. Pete asked for comments, and these have been given, and the first couple of pages were mostly positive.

And that was a sentiment that was expressed a few times. Along the lines of "I'm not keen on this, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, hope it works for you."

If people ignored Pete, it's probably because of this. Pete's been here for about a year. Many of his posts were because he sought advice. Advice was offered, and Pete ignored it. He would post the same question the following week, or a follow-up saying that what he tried (contrary to advice given) didn't work, and did anyone have an idea why. Some people felt he ignored them, so they stopped replying. K10D sharpness springs to mind. Also, Pete would ask for criticism on his photos, then if someone felt there were areas for improvement, a reply along the lines of "well I don't see any of your pictures here, what makes you think you can comment" was given.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's how it seemed to me. It may have been different from other's perspectives.

I really do wish Pete all the best with his photography, I hope he continues to learn at the staggering rate he has done over the last year. His thick skin should serve him well in the business world. He keeps bouncing back, but I don't think he takes criticism too well in the first place, and a lot of his initial replies to criticism are retaliatory. Other than that, I think he's got the enthusiasm to make a go of it.

And no, I wouldn't touch a wedding with a barge pole! But I have designed a website or two.

Dan