I agree with all you say. However, I can't begin to choose my most clicheed shot! And I don't have any other sort.

G

Quite so. Which is why I said this: "Puma often manages to avoid cliche by choosing days when the weather ISN'T perfect, and also by concentrating on detail. Bwlchmawr often does the same in his pictures."

I do post pictures occasionally. By all means have a look at how I do cliche in my gallery!

G

Thank you for providing a link to some images of the most photographed (and painted) landscapes in Britain, if not the world.

Whilst the pictures are technically competent, and the compositions perfectly acceptable, it is the choice of subject matter and the bright skies that make these hackneyed.

We have all seen so many Lake District paintings and photos (and post-cards) that it takes really exceptional work to make one sit up and say Wow!

Puma often manages to avoid cliche by choosing days when the weather ISN'T perfect, and also by concentrating on detail. Bwlchmawr often does the same in his pictures.

Big landscape shots just aren't arresting when you have seen variations of the same thing a thousand times before.

None of which is to say that these are bad. They're good. But they are not new.

G

It's a shame manufacturers think it is necessary to re-do almost everything when they bring out a new model.

I was delighted when the K20D turned out to be an improved K10D, which to all intents and purposes is ergonomically identical. Given that the K10/20D is such a good design, it would have been nice if Pentax could have kept going with the same chassis and controls.

G

Two points:

First, it's absurd to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt by Pentax to mislead. It's obviously an error, albeit an unfortunate one.

Second, it's equally absurd to compare the price of this lens with the prices of competitors' lenses until it has been properly tested and its quality ascertained.

The days of high quality 50mm lenses at low prices are over. At one time, everybody had a 50mm. Now (nearly) everybody has an 18-55, and that is why those can be sold so cheaply.

G

My understanding was that the right place to solicit criticism was the Your Photos section, in the part of the forum which for some reason is called Gallery, although it isn't "the" Gallery.

However, I notice the section is sub-titled "Post pictures taken using Pentax related equipment to show its capabilities here", which is not a true reflection of how it is actually used.

The real gallery, as JR pointed out earlier, is a place to display one's better pictures.

Maybe a bit of re-wording would be useful.

And David, the problem with flooding the gallery with poor pictures is that very few people look at them (other than the cheesy shots of semi-naked ladies). Those who do look at them are a small intrepid band who are given to making statements like this: "Sheer brilliance!!" and "Nice one XXXX!".

Comments like these are not especially helpful, and sadly this type do form the vast majority of gallery comments.

The Pentax User Group in the States has a system whereby members submit one photo a month to their gallery, and the standard is usually quite high. It's not a competition, simply a monthly gallery.

http://pug.komkon.org/

G

ETA: It's sad that most gallery comments tend to be brief squeals of delight IF your reason for posting is to get constructive criticism. If you just want the approbation of your peers, then they no doubt do the job.

Well, I agree that the pictures on the earlier page don't exactly bowl one over. But there are a couple of reasons for that.

First, they were of course all shot on film and then scanned on poor scanners (by today's standards), which hasn't helped them at all. Colours are distorted and sharpness is lost.

Furthermore, we are used nowadays to seeing highly saturated images, which makes the film pictures look dull. Scanning on cheap scanners is particularly damaging to transparencies, which tend to look as though the life has been drained out of them.

Second, it does tend to confirm my view that the advent of digital has improved people's photography. More people are doing it, and they are spending more time on it, and trying to learn from mistakes.

But I also take your point that some of the pictures being posted currently are pretty good.

G

It would be interesting to hear your definition of a dropping in standards. I would say that thanks to people like Puma, the better pictures that are posted are as good as ever.

However, as in life generally, quality and quantity are often found in inverse proportion, and those who tend to post most are also those whose pictures aren't (in my view) in the top rank. As a result, the overall standard is dragged down.

The consequence of this, of course, is that some people (Gartmore being one, and I am another) don't often look at the gallery. And that is a shame.

We can't all be as good as Puma, but we can resolve only to post our best pictures. And if even those aren't very good then at least we can resolve to only post a few.

That's what I do!

G

You must know that this is nonsense, David.

I can't sing a note, but I can tell that Bjoerling is a better singer than Domingo. I'm a hopeless poet, but I believe that Herrick is a superior poet to Auden. I'm no sculptor, but I don't think I'm alone in considering Picasso a much better more inspired and talented sculptor than Gormley.

Just like the PPG, the PUF gallery has lost its way. It contains some lovely images, but these are vastly outnumbered by an avalanche of mediocre pictures from people with an inflated idea of their own talent.

Taking up your point, David, I don't post often to the gallery for two reasons. First, my primary purpose in taking pictures is to please myself, not others. And second, I don't think that most of my pictures are much good.

I just wish that some of the more prolific posters were similarly self-critical.

G

Shaun and Timbo are fine. Unfortunately one has to wade through an awful lot of dung to find the few lillies.

Some people seem to think that because they have taken a picture of a beautiful subject, the picture itself must therefore be good. Not so.

This is especially true, it seems, of pictures of the Lake District. One member floods the gallery with third-rate pictures of lakes and mountains as though he were doing us all a favour. God knows why.

G