Dust has always been the enemy - because you are printing from a negative they appear as white spots on prints.

The art of spotting prints unvolved spotting out the marks with inks.

Removing sensor marks is a doddle by comparison!

There's no reason why harsh lighting can't be used for portraits, it all depends on the effect that you want.

I think here it's the pose and composition that needs working on in particular and the only way to do this is to keep on shooting lots of images. Photographing people is not easy, but it does improve as we go.

I'm not sure that the lighting and background gel together and I'd be very tempted to use a black background with this sort of lighting. It will be low key, very dark and heavy, but also very dramatic and this might suit her style.

Some old lenses, and I mean old brass lenses in the main, have an amazing number of blades and give a virtually circular aperture. This is sometimes found in lenses for miniature cameras (medium format and 35mm in this context)up to the 1960s.

There's nothing quite like these for DSLRs though.

I've mixed feelings about the article linked to, as it says some pretty dubious things, many of which would be hard to prove or disprove.

Although I can see what is being got at, I'm not convinced that we really have a set of rules that we can apply that describe bokeh. I've seen some horrible effects in out of focus backgrounds that the photographer has described as wonderful bokeh, so there may be a lot of imperfect understanding.

Martin's image doesn't fall into that category, but I still don't find all those discs appealing, so I'll go along with it all being subjective.

It's a relatively new term that refers to the appearance of the out of focus areas in an image. Technically, the number of leaves in the diaphragm in the lens will affect bokeh, generally more leaves equating with a smoother look.

I get the feeling that sometimes it's referred to as being much more objective as a description than it really is.

I think you've done the right thing and actually handled some cameras. You've made a decision already really as you like it, so I would suggest go for it. You could get lots of alternative suggestions, but you'd be back to square one!

Focus indicator is that the image in the viewfinder snaps into focus, and that's a lot more positive than most compact cameras. OK, it would be nice, but it's not essential.

Just enjoy the photography.

Formal portraits suit a tripod, as might some fine art nude images. It enables very precise focusing that doesn't waver at the point of exposure.

Generally though I would agree that a tripod can limit you.

The memory playing tricks? It was Jack Scofield, for whom I always had the greatest respect both as a writer and an editor.

Nice looking example of one of my favourite Pentaxes! As for the foam, if it's not sticky and horrible or dry and disintigrating then it's OK.

There is also a strip of foam that cushions the mirror as it flies up and that too should be checked out.

Congratulations to PentaxDan, who is getting married today!

Hope you both have a wonderful day!