When I started computer programming (as part of a psychology degree, would you believe) I was taught to always add a copywrite statement at the end of the source code.
About the same time I can remember somebody advertising (this is before the days of ebay) prints made from someone else's images: like "a reprint by Jeff from an original image by Ansel Adams".
Academics tend to get rather excited at the slightest hint of plagiarism - which is exactly what this is all about.
A friend who sells clothing on ebay has had her images "reused" by others. this stopped when I showed her how to insert a copywrite statement into each image.
Probably, we should all keep this in mind every time we let an image go out of our own hands - as for the guy in the link, he deserves all the bad press he can get - as a thief, not as an artist.
Geoff

Declining health (an aggressive form of MS) is limiting my photo activity, and forcing me to re-think just what kit I can still handle. The K20D has to go (boo hoo) and then I shall work my way through the lenses that will become superfluous,

Pentax K20D Body. This is “like new” with only 2750 shutter actuations. Boxed, complete with all three CDs, battery, charger, all leads/cables (USB datalead is not original), and PC flash body cap. Fitted with horizontal split image focussing screen (original screen will be provided in a case with tools to change back). Original Pentax neckstrap. A body cap, 16mb Class 10 SD card, and a spare D-LI50 battery will be included.
£135 delivered UK mainland. Bank transfer only. Could negotiate around an 18-55 kit lens to fit.
OR will swap for a good, clean, X-5 with shutter count in 4 figures (and with all the bits and bobs – need not be boxed).

[IMG]http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa380/DoctorJeff/PD1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa380/DoctorJeff/PD2.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa380/DoctorJeff/PD3.jpg[/IMG]

PM Sent

Geoff

I just turned this up in a clear-out.
It is in good (not perfect) condition. No photo - you all know what the old manuals look like.
Anyone want it for the cost of postage (or collect from West Wiltshire)
Geoff

You want a Photobucket account.
Their interface is not perfect, but very easy to upload a photo, and then copy its URL to insert into your new topic.
Image will auto-open
John R did a tutorial on this some years back - maybe it's time he did it again.
Geoff

Building on what Chris has said ...
Stick a new set of batteries in (or fully charged r/c batts) switch on and leave the thing alone.
Come back after lunch (or a meal of your choice) and repeat.
After two or three sets of batteries, you may well find that the "ready" light is now on.
Pop the "Test" button and see if it recharges quickly (but you may need yet another set of batteries).
I have heard this called "Reconditioning the capacitor", but it has worked for me several times.

Geoff

Surely, the big difference - REAL BIG DIFFERENCE - is in the sensor type that you are trying to compare.
One is CCD, the other is CMOS
You have two real choices:
- Sell the K5 and get a s/h K200D
- Persevere with fine tuning the K% settings until you get results that you like.

Either option does mean that you get to keep your Pentax accessories.

Geoff

Actually, this is not always the case. An older version - fully updated - is likely to be more secure than a new version where only the hackers have found the weaknesses.

If a developer wants to produce a version of (say) a forum that only works well on a given browser version, then all they have to do is to say so. This was a common courtesy in the days when video displays were progressing from 640 x 480 VGA ("This site is best viewed at 800 x 600" was typical). OF course, in those days there was only Mosaic, until Netscape, Cello, and Nello came along (yes, I can remember that far back - quite easily).

Most people do not upgrade their software until they upgrade their hardware. They are happy with what they are familiar with, and if it suits what they want to do, they stay with it. I could go on about this at some length, but that would get away from the point that a lot of people (evidenced by the posts on this forum) are not pleased with some (or all) of the changes, and can see no point in them.

Geoff

David Burleson wrote:
Sorry David - it is the job of the developer to produce a website that works, NOT to tell people what to use. There are very few people who will change computers or software just because there is a new version.
There are very few websites that my equipment cannot handle. So why should I change for one bad product? The new website does not work well on my iMac (there are no scroll bars, so I cannot even read a whole page, and the same thing happens with Firefox. It also happens with Firefox on my IBM Thinkpad (14").
Just like MrB, Opera on my 64bit Win 7 machine tells me that I have the latest version (12.something)
Moving the menu bar in from the fully right justified position has made it a bit more usable for the left handed - but if it had been in the centre it would have been the best position for RH and LH alike.
Verdana is not the best font at any time ( it came third for readability in one survey I know of) whereas Tahoma (the winner) looks a bit darker as a block of text, and much better in black (wow, better contrast).

The excess of white space is perhaps the second worst mistake from a useability viewpoint.
To the human visual system, brighter equals nearer - the extra brightness of the mass of white space will cause a lot of folk to draw away from the screen, and the pale grey font is now even harder to read.
Also, the human visual system uses a complex network of cells in each eye to detect the start and finish of a line, whether the line is straight or curved, and this network relies on a good degree of contrast. It does not matter a lot whether this is luminance contrast or colour contrast - what does matter is that the contrast is there. If you stop and think for a moment, you may realise that straight and curved lines are what letters are made up from.

However that is not the worst. What no designer has any control over is the ambient lighting where any computer is being used. In a well lit room, the pale grey may well be almost invisible, but with much lower ambient lighting it may well be readable (I used to demonstrate this in a lecture theatre where I had total control of the room lighting).

I used to cite the Pentax User and notably the forums as an example of how a good forum should work - no longer.

Geoff

In one word - YUCK

Obviously the "designers" come from the school of:
If it ain't broke - fix it till it is.
There is a clear demonstration of the general lack of HCI knowledge, and of knowledge of the human visual system, and of what the average computer user has as a home setup.
There are still a lot of folk running XP at 1024 x 768 on a 17" monitor - and they are probably in the majority.
Yes, you can have a separate version for cellphones (see above), but who was the misguided individual who chose Verdana as a font?
Tahoma in black on a white or pale cream background is an easy read - this is not!

Still, there is a bright side (no not the mass of white space) - looking at the HTML code, I have now discovered where some of the tracking cookies come from that I have to clean out on a weekly basis.

Geoff