Thanks guys. that Interfit kit looks promising John - certainly a good starting point.
Diatribe, the Jessops kits are for product shots but thanks anyway. If anyone is looking for a two lamp kit with a transparent base/background then check it out.

Ok the time has come to get some studio lights. I have tried to get to the bottom of the flash verses continuous debate but the threads seem to be old. Feel free to point me in the right direction.

I have £3-400 to buy some sort of portable studio. I may do some video very infrequently. But mostly still portraits and I probably shouldn't rule out family shots.
I am toying with one of those pop-up backgrounds with a train, two soft boxes, a hair light and a multi-colour reflector.

The main queries are:
Flash or new-fangled low wattage continuous lights?
Soft boxes or umbrellas?
Any clues as to the best place to look? (it's a minefield out there)

Grabbed the W60 for a trip to the beach today.
Here are some examples of underwater macro (about 2cm with flash) and a normal bright beach shot, again, with flash. It really isn't comfortable with anything but back lighting.
It is bloody handy on the beach, just stuff it into your pocket, even in your boardies, and fire away. These are pretty much straight out of the camera,64iso, forced flash. They'll do for 5x7 prints or email, but that's about it.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that they have just interpolated the pixels to make it 10Meg. There really isn't any detail at 100% even at 64iso - just smudgy noise.
I'll do some tests at lower resolutions to see if there's a sweet spot.

My gorgeous Aprilia after throwing it down the road.
Apologies for the hastily grabbed Fuji pictures.


And an ass shot



It is now back on the road and looking kinda mean - like a junk yard dog.

Oh, by the way Karl...I hate you so much right now...

There is one aspect which may or may not be a problem. As I understand it, DNG is becoming the standard, so should be safe to archive but PEF is a proprietary (brand specific) format which may be difficult to open in 10 years. Anyone know if there is any mileage(kilometre-age)in this theory?

interesting point Mike, but all I noticed was the fabulous building. Which has to be good.
I agree that 1 is the best, great exposure on the sky and it dominates the picture 'properly'.
There's bound to be a more dramatic angle somewhere, but it may compromise this picture's ability to describe the true shape.

I agree Martin, and this designation will also have little meaning if applied to the cut and paste merchants who say so very little with their million words.
What is it based on? does anyone know?

My overriding impression is that they are all over sharpened.
Looks like they would benefit from some flash if possible to help with the shutter speed/camera shake. or a tripod...

You can't help but be cheered up by number 1

edit: don't shoot though windows unless it's really bright outside and dark inside.

In photoshop: try to use sharpening more selectively, either by sharpening thru a mask or using the history brush to paint back the softness, reduce the noise and halos.

Great shots Ralf, you have an absolutely uncanny ability to to capture the light and dynamic range in a scene. I feel like every shot I take is underexposed and flat in comparison

I completely agree with you Martin. And I sympathise with your plight trying to get your point across! Thanks for taking the time to really engage with the subject and understand it.
It was definitely an invigorating discussion and worthwhile bringing it up even if a few handbags were drawn