Very true Andrew, my Olds shot above would be nicer without that green chair on the right for example. In fact quite a few people set up picnic tables and chairs right in front of their cars, so no opportunity to get a decent shot. Usually just the usual show attendees ruin it by standing in the way.

Hi, not a million miles away from me.

Interesting, I don't take many shots at static car shows now but I usually find something similar to your shot, especially if there's anything of US origin with a decent grille. Funny how two complete strangers see the same thing, this was at a local show I attended yesterday, with advance apologies if it looks like I'm hijacking the thread.

I think number six is probably my favourite. Hadn't realised there was historic racing on at Oulton this weekend, but then I was elsewhere.

Not sure Don, I've never liked milk without tea in it, so I didn't want to try it.

Cheers all, lots of nice scenery along the railway line and I'm a bit tempted to go back when the show isn't on and have more of a look around. Trouble is, when it's decent weather, it's busier so puts me off, with me being anti-social and so on.

A first for me at this event, generally stayed decent weather apart from a bit of rain on Sunday, even saw a couple of other Pentax users floating around.

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/hpfirenza/CTW2015/Imgp8676-web.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/hpfirenza/CTW2015/Imgp8699-web.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/hpfirenza/CTW2015/Imgp8708-web.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a149/hpfirenza/CTW2015/Imgp8814-web.jpg[/IMG]

I've tried two different methods.

First I bought a "Jessops Slide Duplicator" to go on the end of a suitable lens using a Series-7 mount. Biggest problem with that was that I didn't have a DSLR at the time, just a compact, but holding it near the end of the lens produced some reasonable results. When I bought my Kx and a suitable adapter, it didn't seem to work as well, so it went.

More recently, I bought a Maplin 5mp slide scanner. It's good enough for what I do with it, but I'm scanning old slides that aren't incredible quality to start with, and scanning them for the content rather than the image quality - I'm not too bothered that it's basically a 5mp webcam with a light in a box as long as we can see the photo of the car or whatever.

I have wondered about projecting the image (to get a decent size) and then taking a photo of the projected image - I would imagine that would be better than my cheapo slide scanner simply because it doesn't require such a high "dpi" resolution as the image we're digitising will be that much bigger. Rather like getting a decent scan of a B&W photo is easier from an 8"x10" print than from a contact sheet.

I've got a 50-500 that I don't make a lot of use of. It had an issue last year where it wouldn't zoom out past about 90mm focal length, and was sent back to Sigma and repaired, and now works as it did before. It doesn't have stabilisation, I bought it used from London Camera Exchange group, and it has the carrying case with it. I don't know what it's worth now so I guess it would be down to seeing what you might be prepared to pay for it.

If you're interested, let me know and I'll take some photos of it and with it to post. I'm just thinking I could sell it to fund a better quality mid-range zoom that I might get more use out of.

Thanks Simon. As I thought about it, some other things came to mind. On Sunday I removed the polarising filter from my 18-200 walkaround lens, so maybe that helps either because it was a cheap filter or just because it lets a little more light through. I'll have to have a look but without the same shot in the same conditions at the same speed it'll be hard to tell, although despite trying to avoid that I probably have several very similar shots. For the panning shots I always expect there to be a lot of throwaways, and the Vulcan shot is more about the angle than the quality now I look at it - I've a "flat" shot that is better technically, but less interesting because it's just a plane in that shot.

I also realised the other day that I am wasting a lot of memory card here. I have the camera set to store "raw + jpg", but every one of the above is from one of the camera-saved jpg images. I doubt that will alter the sharpness but it might bring some other stuff back, so I need to have a play with it - if I'm not going to use the raw images, it's pretty much a waste of time saving them.

I might well put some more up later as the honest critique is very helpful, and hopefully receive some more. I've put similar shots in various motoring-related sites and heard "great photo", but of course they're looking at the content of the shot, not the technicalities of it as a photograph. On that basis some of them were a poor selection here.

Thanks for the comments George.

I was surprised at how much the background was blurred on the first shot, given that it's at the far end of the zoom (18-200) and therefore smaller aperture which I would have thought would give it longer depth of field. 7 and 5 aren't quite so far zoomed so I'd have thought the DoF would be shorter. 4 is a bit of an anomaly - it was broad daylight, but the lights directly at the camera fooled it into that exposure.