Generally, internal reflections within a lens can cause flare and loss of contrast. Because the sensor is sensitive to IR light any IR that is being scattered will affect the sensor even though we can't see it. This causes colour shifts and lack of contrast, so it is filtered out by a "hot filter" in front of the sensor.

Leica found this to be quite a problem in their rangefinder digital R8.

Canon also filter out IR very aggressively, so Canon cameras are unsuitable for IR photography.

It is possible to have the hot filter removed by a repairer and replaced by clear glass, thus creating an IR sensitive camera. Fuji actually market IR versions of their S5 and S9600 cameras.

All digital cameras are very sensitive to IR so the manufacturers put a filter in front of the sensor to remove some or all of the IR. It can cause colour shifts and loss of contrast.

The *istDS is not too bad in this respect and will work quite well with IR, but the K10D filtered quite aggressively and wasn't so good. The K20D I have not tried.

The technique is to put the camera on a tripod, compose your image, refocusing manually to the IR marker if there is one on your lens. Then put on the filter and let the camera calculate the new exposure. You won't see through the viewfinder at this stage because the filter removes all the visible light.

When the (possibly quite long) exposure is done you will be able to view the very red image on the camera screen. This then needs converting to black and white either in camera if it does it or in Photoshop or similar.

That's it in a nutshell, but there are plenty of books on IR imaging. It can look fantastic with the right sort of subject.

Now that would be worth inventing a time machine for. I would just love to find an unsold, never opened MX somewhere. Not impossible I guess, but very unlikely.

There are some tricky questions there....I'd rather not find out the hard way.

Just imagine you put your camera bag down for a minute, move to re-arrange a group and then someone falls over your bag and breaks a leg. Unlikely? Maybe, but things like that do happen.

You're on the way to the venue and your car breaks down. You miss the wedding. How much to re-stage the event to take the photos?

The possibilities are endless, and will certainly never happen unless you have no insurance.

It was there at 16:31 with a different look.

The three Pentax lenses were still there as well. No longer available for home delivery...searched everywhere for a store....referred back as only available for home delivery.....it's obviously a time loop.

Anything that anyone posts on here (as opposed to providing a link) they should have permission to use. Nobody approves of copyright infringement.

It's up to the individuals to make sure that they do indeed have copyright or permission and I've no doubt it is covered in the Terms of Use that we all agreed to when we signed up to the forum.

There still seems to be a feeling around that Pentax are doing this deliberately with total unawareness of the effects it might have, but I really do find that difficult to believe.

Businesses are run for profit and camera manufacturers are having a hard time. Nikon for example recently announced quite a large loss. I would suspect that Pentax have done what they had to do. I would hope it will rebalance as Sterling recovers against the Yen and/or the Euro, which, wherever the items are made, are probably the currencies being dealt in.

I've only ever used Premium paper, the logic being there's no point in not having the best result.

I have spoken to people who have used both, and they say that the Premium is distictly better quality. Rather a subjective statement I'm afraid, but I hope it helps.

A question to address in a Report if you're worried about that Graham. What you highlight of course is that as soon as anyone makes an argument or makes a rule, there is huge potential for "rules lawyers" to pick at it and find any loophole or inconsistency that they can. This often leads to bickering unfortunately.

We have had some AD&D players who were dreadful in that respect - a nightmare that would reduce a playing session to chaos if the DM was not firm enough to contain it.

It's a slippery slope, but it's clear that there are plenty of photographers who see no value in their images and as a consequence see nothing wrong with anyone else using them as they wish.

I don't know if this means that they themselves would happily use any image they could find without a worry about it, or whether they would pause and think it wasn't right.

This is probably a consequence of digital imaging being so widespread that it has devalued the single image. If everyone thinks an image has no value then it will have no value and it will become very difficult to make a living out of making images.

Fortunately the saving grace will be that some photographers truly have skills and can deliver the requirements of buyers who need high quality. These photographers will not want to have their images stolen without fees being paid, so they will protect them as well as they can.

This is not too much unlike having on the one hand a cheap piece of jewellery that you quite happily leave lying on the kitchen table with the back door unlocked. No-one will want it or steal it. If it's valuable, you put it out of sight and lock the door.

We can't put our images out of sight of course, but we can lock the door....