When looking at these charts, don't forget that there will be more DOF behind the focus point than in front, simply because the area in front is closer. So don't try to equalise the DOF on either side of the zero point.

All macro lenses should give excellent results, but the Pentax ones might be better quality at very large print sizes.

More important is that I think they are more compact and better made, so the long extension helicoid needed for such close focusing may well last longer before becoming sloppy.

A second hand Pentax macro in almost new condition should be quite possible to find.

Much of what I personally do in Photoshop I used to do in the darkroom, or sometimes even with a pair of scissors. Combining images, making fake reflections,putting in dramatic skies and so on.

However, I'm not much of a fan of flying pigs and other OTT images that are really PS created. Nor am I a fan of platicised skin - I prefer my models to look like real people.

Still, each to his/her own.

I honestly think it's missing the point. You can't make a great photo out of a poor one with Photoshop. What you can do is present your image in a personalised way, making the best of the raw material. Just as you would when making a darkroom print.

In the darkroom we would use different grades of paper, shading, burning in and various other techniques to produce the print. In the words of Ansel Adams the negative is the score and the print is the performance. Does anyone doubt that AA was a photographer?

In the digital darkroom we do exactly the same, but in a different way. It's no better and no worse, it's just what we make of it.

Now whether the content of the image is of good or bad quality is something else, but it's also certain that a momentous recording of something unique will be more important than its technical quality.

Generally though we do have to consider technical quality and manipulation of the image has always been a part of the process of making a truly great photograph.

Digital cameras do produce images that are rather soft, so some degree of post processing is usually needed.

IMO it's no worse or better than choosing a grade of paper or a developer type in the darkroom to make an image into a great image.

Definitely no to beathing on the sensor and using cotton buds. You've spent a lot of money on your camera, don't over-economise on the method of dust removal.

In this digital world it is much more of a problem than it ever was. Lots of people don't feel they need to ask permission and/or pay a fee to use someone else's property, but it is stealing if they do.

That's a bit perplexing and I wonder if much of it was intended to be a quote?

Anyway, I'm sure we've all got the point now from all points of view. I don't think anyone was saying that any individual was not very bright, or meaning any other disrespect.

You already own the copyright and do not need to register it with anyone.

Reverse engineering is taking something apart to see how it works and then making your product to interface with it. That doesn't sound like the way two commonly-owned companies would operate.

The collaboration between Tokina and Pentax and indeed Tamron and Pentax probably works in many ways on many levels. Expertise from both companies can be combined to their mutual benefit.

One feature I really like that has come out of all this is the mechanism for manual focus tweaking whilst in AF mode. Very useful. I wonder who thought of it.