I shall attempt to address the points raised. Apologies if I miss any.

Alan & Nigel: Yes, there is some haloing here and there. Hence the reference in the description to these being a little crude in part. I'm still experimenting with the techniques and they aren't right yet. With Gotham it doesn't bother me, I think it suits the gothic fantasy look. The halo that really bothers me is on Tower Of Power 1, although it is more obvious on the next shot.

Smeg, the number one self-obsessiveness about my photography is composition. Not paying attention to the edges of the frame just isn't an option. It will be a conscious decision, not always the right one but a considered one. In this case I cropped in from the right because I thought the proximity to the edge of frame was the lesser of two evils, the greater being the distracting sticky out bits here:




Matt - the 12-24 is really my workhorse lens, especially since I have learned to largely overcome its weakness of CA. It is superb in all other respects. The big question for me with a Pentax full frame is to come up with a better or at least equivalent wide zoom.

David(T) & Jon - this is new to me but not a new genre and really there are many way better examples. I am satisfied with the first steps and there is something to build on.

Bill & Nigel - I am not really technical, in fact not in the slightest bit technical. I find it difficult to explain my approach because I don't really have one that makes any sense to myself. In the first instance it is sort of a balancing act between seeking the right light and subject for a particular mood and adjusting the mood and subject to the light available at the time. When I am in London I will just get a travelcard and decide what to shoot and where to go when I get there, depending on how I feel and how the weather is or where my thoughts lead me on the train on the way up, or what I am listening to on my ipod, or any number of other things. Once I have decided what to shoot then I do have three unbreakable rules and only three, don't blow the highlights, don't blow the highlights and don't blow the highlights.

The exposure in shots like these is based on waiting for the right conditions where there is going to be a workable dynamic range and trying for just controlled highlights which will ensure maximum detail to work with in the dark areas. How I calculate that is just really guesswork. I invariably go for iso100 or iso400 as a starting point and I have got used to what settings work - it is mostly instinctive (aka guessing). I will either go for Av and dial in compensation or switch to manual. I'll check the histogram and that will give me a point of reference and once on the right track I will adjust manually for the changing light. I don't know what metering mode my camera is set to without having a look - the same one as it has been for three years. I just regard it as a starting point and don't rely on the metering at all, in fact I don't trust it. Once shooing I will chimp every now and again to make sure I am not wildly off the mark.

Processing is rather ad hoc too. Whatever works, no single formula. Pretty much each of the above photos has a different technique. I do have an idea of the outcome, when I am shooting I might have my mental B&W goggles and see what I want the scene to be, not what it is. So processing is to match the recollection. Or I might go off on a different track altogether, one tweak leads to another. The most common theme with the above series is to reduce the overall exposure, sometimes dramatically and then bring parts back up. Hence some of the haloing.

Given my background, which is science and then accountancy I would expect myself to be interested in the technical side of photography and to adopt a methodical, consistent approach. But I am quite the opposite, I really couldn't care less.

As regards colours I am heavily colour blind. I suspect the white balance might not be right with some of the above shots. I just slide the sliders to what looks right to me. I do sometimes enlist the help of my children to assist with colours where fidelity is important but otherwise I just don't have a clue. The more stylised the image, as above, the less it matters.

So my answer is vague, basically I wing it.

Just wondered if anyone is going. I'll be knocking around all week there and thought it would be nice to bump into a Pentaxian.

Thanks for all the feedback. See what you gone and done Mr Storm? I have loads of points to answer now.

Here are some images from a stroll around London town recently. The crick in the neck architectural shot is something that I haven't tried before. I don't like converging verticals or Dutch angles so it seemed a good opportunity to confront those demons and to try out some new techniques (for me) on processing to bring my mostly dark visions to fruition. Image heavy, although I have a heap more, and a little crude in part still. C&C of whatever variety welcome:

Flightpath





McAlpine's Fusiliers





Plastic Fantastic Cover





Gotham





Big Baby Is Watching You





Tower Of Power 1





Tower Of Power 2





Willis





Lloyds






Klaatu Barada Nikto 1





Klaatu Barada Nikto 2





Gherkin Of Gloom

If you had clarified 'your what do others think? with a 'not that we are prepared to do anything' then we could have saved 11 pages of discussion.

I really don't see how having two sections instead of one is complicated. If someone posts a thread in the wrong section then tough fromage, maybe they would learn for next time.

There doesn't seem much point asking for opinions when the inevitable answer is we won't do anything about it.

I think Aliengrove has already made the best suggestion.

There has to be a place for people to 'show off' their images and the gallery serves that purpose well. It's pretty clear to me that forthright opinion in the gallery is often not well received. So I think it is best left exactly as it is.

Then in the main body of the forum, some display images for critique or to canvas opinion with the aim of improvement. For those a critique section would be appropriate. Post an image there and expect forthright opinion, at least from some quarters Alan.

Others might post an image for a particular demonstration of equipment or for a discussion about the subject. Others will post their images because they think they are great and wish to hear just praise. For those then an exhibition space would be appropriate where constructive criticism is inappropriate. The purpose of posting would be pretty clear from the images and description.

The Q7 though has the same sized sensor as the MX-1 so should be more comparable in terms of IQ.

If you buy a Pentax in the UK be careful over the warranty. The warranty seems to vary between Pro Centres depending on retailer. Avoid Park Cameras for example.

I would leave Pentax or supplement Pentax for some kind of specialism. For example for serious sports. Maybe that Canon macro lens. Or the outstanding Nikon FX 14-24 for landscape. But there would have to be some commercial purpose for me to do that and that is unlikely.

For all round shooting then I still find Pentax the best choice. Fuji are doing interesting things and offering similar advantages to Pentax. I know a few who have gone Fuji and won't come back. But I think Pentax K remains the best value system, hopefully that will continue.

I am not happy with Pentax for my compact alternative to the dslr. Now the Q has packed up and the retailer and Pentax unhelpful then I will most likely now switch brands for my go everywhere option as I only reward good service with loyalty and I won't throw good money after bad.

The question itself is a very good question. I can see both points of view. I think there is a place for a naturalistic portrayal of the subject and a place for the impeccable image. I think a wabi-sabi approach works too. But a hybrid of these intentions I think is difficult. Does the inclusion of some 'imperfection' enhance this particular genre - the isolation of the insect from the background? Not for me, I think excessive perfection is an oxymoron. I agree with Chris's comments. I would be even more hyper critical by pointing out the nick in the swallowtail's wing as I think this genre is at its best with an impeccable background and an impeccable, unblemished subject. I can understand where Smeg is coming from too. But you can't please all the people all the time.

I would value the kind of critique provided by Chris with my images. I might not decide to take it on board but it would certainly direct me to examine what the camera club judge regards as impeccable and decide for myself whether I wanted to try and produce award winning images or whether is was more comfortable with a different path.

John, what you say on this forum counts for more than what anyone else says. You have the power to control what is being discussed and how it is discussed and through this you set the tone for the forum. When therefore you characterise Chris as being over-critical with his observations it gives the message that this forum is really not the kind of place for that kind of no holds barred critique, for want of a better expression. That is exactly what was being discussed in David Storm's thread.