Yeh - like that mal. What's that object on the horizon just to the right of the Jetty - can't be a sail boat or it would have 'blurred'.

Funny how the rubber grip peeled off - mine did to

Your Call - anyway still much like the pics

I think both Smeggy and Alien are right. However coming from a Marketing/PR background, Pentax have missed a trick. To the great unwashed, a ‘Pro’ Brand creates an aspirational feel. Over many years Nikon/Olympus/Canon have played this card. In their product portfolio they have ‘top end’ kit, but then produced cheaper stuff, that the punter can buy into and thus imagine they are buying into a ‘Pro’ experience. Pentax used to promote itself as ‘Pro’ in the 60’s, but have, in recent history, seemed to be more apologetic about their offering. I do see this changing with Ricoh. But more needs to be done.
If they pick this up I want a FEE

Can't see the problem with the name changing each year - but how about calling the whole project 'FACES' then having subfiles '14' '15' '16' etc., until you get tired of it

Now that would be interesting - but it wasn't ME that opened up an 'old can of worms'

QC - I think I remember there being some discussion over what you might call your Project. Seems to me 'FACES OF 14' would be a good one - just think, if you had done this ten years ago and were able to make a comparision with 'Faces of 04' A real social documentary record

Ken - LIKE - Another good Ad for Q. Mind you there might be the 'odd' person who wouldn't consider them 'photography'

John, I am going to try an alternative route by using Firefox rather than IE8, to see if that makes a difference. My ISP is more commercially oriented than your average, so think they cover most of the items you mentioned.

Thanks Barrie, I am comforted now by your explanation, except the on going problem when the redirect 'hangs'.