This might be real pain, but for future it would be really interesting and useful if we could post sketches of lighting rigs (in plan view)- I'm not too sure what you mean by 'feathered', can you expain?

Ken

well I bet the little boys parents are delighted and you should be too, although I'm not so keen on the 'polaroid negative ' border but his expression and eye-contact are ace!

Well that is a pain but these things seem to be improving all the time.

Ken

Graham,

Are you sure about your internet limitations, I've never had any particularly exotic kit or ISP stuff, just bog standard - I cant imagine a few jpegs causing you to excede an allowance. There is another point here, however, wee pics dont do themselves much justice and I cant really see how folks can pontificate about resolution,pixels,sharpness etc. on photos that easily fit on a monitor screen (and yes, I know all the arguments about not posting full size) It just seems to me to be a fairly fruitless exercise. For example, for all the chat about the relative merits of the 18-55 and the 16-45, on the postings on this forum you cant tell which one did what.

Ken

It is a really good idea to have a 'viewing wall' at home, just somewhere to put up images and look at them self-critically (blu-tak on any empty surface will do) before unleashing a bunch of dull and, I think pointless, images on everyone else; what exactly are you trying to say about the subject matter? There is nothing here that enlightens, informs or even entertains. Can I suggest you get some books on truly great photographers and analyse their images?

The pillar box pics look perfecly ok to me but nothing like the red paint on the one outside my house. So what! It is absolutley impossible ( years of bitter experience talking here) to have the same image qualities across a range of media.

In 35mm days you got a new sensor for every shot! I discovered some 'dust' spots and blew them off only to discover some residue remaining which makes me wonder if the 'dust' might have been pollen or something. Anyway, took heart in hand, and purchased Giotto rocket blower, size 2 Sensor Swabs and Ecipse E2 cleaning fluid (according to the seller, different makes require differerent foprmulations). Worked a treat after inserting fresh batteries. Haven't seen this mentioned here before but the DS announced that there wasn't enough battery life remaining to clean the sensor.

http://www.photosol.com/index.htm

I have a bit of experience of this although it might be quite out of date since who knows what changes have taken place over the past few years to security scanners. I had a shoot which involved a lot of air travel so film, exposed and unexposed was probably 'x-rayed' maybe about 20 times. The only casualties (and they weren't fatal) were some rolls of Tri-x which were rated at 1600ASA. You could see sprocket roll print through and the negs seemed a little flat but still printed OK on a harder grade of paper. Done lots of flying with lots of film since and never had any problems. I undrerstand that the scanners they use for hold baggage are stronger than the ones for hand baggage. I'm not sure that they use x-rays given the precautions that radiographers take and I haven't seen any airport staff wearing lead aprons!

Enjoy Corsica,

Ken

The reason the OPtex filter is so thick is that the glass is primarily intended for use in the film industry - its designed to keep camera noise in! They are of the highest quality and the price you quote is a bargain but I'm sure you would get vignetting. I use a Jessops own brand 'Pro' filter which is extremely thin and causes no problems at all, I'm just about certain that this is a re-badged Hoya because the spec is exactly the same.

There is absolutely 100% no value in putting a skylight filter on for a portrait shot, these filters are intended to cut aerial uv haze, how far away is the model? Any filter will in theory reduce the performance of the lens if used injudiciously.