I think you might need a Mac to make an iBook, but I will check and get back to you.

To ensure the best quality I use iBooks and send them images of approximately A4 and 300ppi.

The result is as good as any coffee table book.

I tend to use the "Daylight" setting on the K10D. The reason is that I like to capture the changing colours of light throughout the day and I can't do that if the camera is trying to compensate for it with AWB.

Some of my friends use "Cloudy" which gives warmer results, but personally I think they end up too warm.

Thanks, George. Our Web Master, Paul Jones, did the site and my son Mike and myself did the forum. We constantly update because there's nothing worse than going to a site and finding it's a couple of years out of date.

But, like here, it's the combination of site and forum that gives it life. A site without a forum is a dead thing to me, just something you look at. It needs to be interactive.

It all depends on your style of photography. I wouldn't double up a focal length though if the budget is limited, so I would perhaps think about the 100mm f2.8 Macro instead. This will add something to the range offered by the 16-45mm. 50mm is not different enough IMHO.

Don't forget eBay for second hand lenses...

No problem, Matt!

Irresepective of the quality though, I tend to find that I work up to a deadline and need a print maybe within a few hours. This tends to make home printing my only option anyway. It's a consequence of lack of time....

The Zorki is a Leica copy and the Kiev is a Contax copy.

Both suffer from dreadful ergonomics compared to modern cameras, but they were superb in their day. Both also suffer from very poor quality control, so you might get a good one or one that fails after very little use.

I once has a mint, as-new Zeiss Contax III and that was a thing of rare and special beauty. Utterly wonderful engineering. It finally went to a buyer in Japan. But even the Zeiss versions had trouble with the vertically-running metal shutters, so it was really something to look at more than to use. The Leica shutter design was much simpler and much more reliable.

On the other hand, the Leica lenses were not as good as the Zeiss ones.

Good as some of these services are there is no substitute for printing at home. It was true of the darkroom and continues to be as true with the inkjet printer. Only by printing for ourselves can we keep total control of the end result.

That holds true for large prints, but I do concede that for small prints some sort of commercial service is much more efficient.

I only make large prints - everything else is viewed on my monitor.

As a generalisation, looking at the images produced for competitions by members of - ADAPS www.adaps.org.uk - there are quite a few photographers who produce fantastic shots but who have a very limited knowledge of photographic rules and theory. They don't let this worry them in the slightest, although they do want to learn more so that they can express more in their images.

These non-technical photographers can be so much better than those who have a total grasp of the theory. Maybe the reason is that they are looking at the image first and the kit is a secondary consideration. At the other extreme are the hight technically proficient who, when film was around, would always be shooting a "test film" but never seemed to get to anyhting more than very sharp images of static subjects.

I'd agree with that, James.