I like them too, but I cant let it go without finding fault, well not really a fault but something I think will improve the tree image.

Try cloning out the figure on the left just above the dog, that light patch just in front of that figure, that white spot on the right of the tree trunk and that white spot in the lower right corner, and move the dog to the other side of the tree.

I know it sounds like nitpicking but just do it and see.

Hi Pete,

Portraiture isn't really my thing, but I do agree with others comments, the backgrounds are awful (sorry) , could you find a plain wall somewhere and thow it out of focus?

I think the exposures about right, IMHO a slight over exposure is more flattering for the ladies, cant comment on skin tones as I dont know what it looks like on your monitor and mine is suspect at the mo'

Advice on getting the model to look at the camera is spot on, one good tip is to pose the model, preferably with chin slightly up then ask them to remain still while YOU move around with the camera, tell them to follow the lens with their eyes only.

Very nice shots though, she looks a natural born poser, I bet her mum is over the moon with them just as they are, but this is a photography forum and we aint her mum, so get it right next time or we'll slap your wrists

Gwyn, its not just the NHS. After taking in and nursing a terminally ill friend, a relative of the wifes was left with a comode and a walking frame, Despite several calls to Social Services she could not get anyone to pick them up, eventually my wife "sneaked" the walking frame into the old peoples home where she works part time, I say "sneaked" because stupid rules and regs would have meant they could not accept it, it is now in daily use by one resident and no-one has questioned where it came from, they just assume its one from a storage room.

Maybe if the NHS were a little more thrifty our prescription charges wouldn't be so high .

Keep it for when you want an easy few days at work

Oh dear, a few conflicting opinions, I may have to look further than problems with my monitor .

As I said, I thought the image looked OK on my monitor but it just printed off pale in comparison, and thats on an Epson which are renowned for printing on the dark side.

Funny thing is, I have since tried printing other images and they seem ok when compared to the image on screen, I'm begining to wonder if its the printer that cant handle the yellows?

Thanks Golf....

Its definately my monitor, that adjustment of yours looks like the poor little blighter lives near Chernobyl on my screen, colour printoff was OK tho'
Looks like a bit of expenditure is on the way

Thanks for the quick input guys, I suppose its my monitor then!

Dont suppose one of you chaps could play with this in photoshop and let me know what settings you use to bring it up to spec, then I can apply them at this end and try and get some sort of calibration on my monitor.

Having problems with either my monitor or printer, the image below looks OK on my monitor, in fact has not had much done to it other than cropping and slight contrast and saturation boost, and sharpening of course. When I printed it off it looked pale and washed out.

What I need to know is how it appears on your monitors.

I would say no more than £20 for the K mount, the KA versions are fetching some good prices on ebay though, obviously word has got out.

Quick Edit....WHOOPS, sorry misread the post, thought you were after a manual lens.

I also wondered at the exclusion of the sync socket, but comparing the price and specs of the istD and the K10D and then comparing the initial prices of these two models its easy to see that Pentax have excluded stuff just to keep the cost down. its not just a matter of an extra hole in the body and a few wires, it would also have been one more hole to weatherseal.