White balance is something I don't worry about, unless there are special circumstances or requirements.

Colour is very subjective and warm portraits, red sunsets, etc. are not really "correct" white balance. But if it looks good, that's fine.

If everything was corrected (something we never did with film) then life would be very boring.

I tend to use AWB, Daylight if I want to keep a sunset colour red and tungsten or fluorescent under the appropriate light source.

So why do we worry so much about white balance? Did we carry lots of colour correction filters with us to use with daylight film? Are we shooting movies?

:

There is no reason why a JPEG file cannot be used to make a superb A3 print to hand on the wall or for exhibiyion.

The idea that only RAW gives acceptable quality is widely spread about, and also quite untrue.

The first two shots of the sunset are very strong in the foreground. The light licks the edge of the rocks and produces a really nice effect. I'm less enamoured of the sea which I don't think goes far enough. An even longer exposure would clinch it for me.

The yellow flowers shot is superb. The colours and composition are spot on.

The architectural shot is also superb. I like symmetry and this shows off the building well and is in context with the style of the construction.

The "splash" shot is also excellent. The moment has been caught beautifully. Very impressive timing.

The two girls have a lovely shot to take away and I'm sure they are delighted. It's straightforward in one sense but actually very well presented, with no superfluous content to distract us from the subject.

You've come a long way since you first arrived at Pentax User and its terrific to see such excellent shots. But don't relax, keep learning and progressing and who knows what the next batch may be like.

Very well done!

A Camera Fair might be a good place for one of these adapters. They can be quite useful.

I think one of the basic requirements is to sharpen, not too much but enough to crisp up the detail. When this is done results are definitely impressive.

Looking very closely at prints is something a lot of judges do, but it isn't realistic. prints have a natural viewing distance, so a 6x4 inch print is looked at pretty closely but an A3 print usually much further away.

At the correct viewing distance a print should look sharp, but viewed unnaturately closely it will lose it. This applies to silver prints as well as inkjet ones. Viewed too close, a print from an FP4 negative will not be sharp - in a different way to a digital image, but the end result is the same.

I'm surporised that you don't find the quality more exciting from these very competent lenses.

How are you viewing the images? Processed in Photoshop? On a monitor? As a print? How large a print?

I've seen plenty of stunning A3 prints from the lenses you list, and they stand up to any marque in competition.

Bags have always been a problem, which is probably why I have so many of them.

But I still keep going back to Billingham, currently using one of the new press-top bags (260) and Hadley.

Not a bad compromise between capacity, size and accessibility.

You can still save your sky by selecting it in Photoshop using the selection tool of your choice and applying levels and/or curves adjustments.

You could even use Channel Mixer selectively on different parts of the image.

This model takes AA batteries, and the best option is to use rechargeable NiMH ones, preferably with as high a rating as possible. 2300 mAh and above should be fine.

If you are using ordinary AA batteries then these may well be the cause of the problem.

Four such lamps, mounted in a large bucket that was used as the reflector. Picture by me, bucket by my ADAPS friend Harry Gladson.