So who's in a pedantic mood tonight?

So how old do you think us Pentax Users are?

I'm guessing that you might want to do this to put the pictures on the web?

The simple thing is to first re-size using Image>Image Size. You can do this to define the actual size of picture that you want, in cm, inches or whatever, or, in the case of say ePHOTOzine you might define the number of pixels instead. This would be 500 pixels wide, or 1000pixels wide for e2 members.

Then you can save in one of two ways.

1) Save As gives you the option of saving as a JPEG, and a second doalog box enables you to choose 12 levels of quality depending on the file size you want

2) Save For Web enables saving as a JPEG but allows the quality level to be adjusted more accirately, in 100 steps. Thius you can choose a file size more closely.

In PS7 re-sizing should be done using Bicubic sampling.
In CS2 use Bicubic or better still for down-sizing use Bicubic Sharper. This will retain detail better. (For up0sizing use Bicubic Smoother)

Sorry this reply refers to the full versions of photoshop, but the principle should be the same for Elements or other programs.

Yes I have occasionally forgotten to reset the ISO, but I've tightened up on procedure as a result!

My darkroom is ready and poised for use as well, and I haven't used it for 18 months at least.

Sadly, my digital monochrome prints are better than my traditional ones, so I'm either brilliant at digital printing or useless at darkroom work, depending on your point of view....

One thing is for sure - I'm really glad i don't have to "spot" prints any more!

I've always enjoyed shooting B/W images, and they have never looked realistic as I like Tri-X, red filters and lots of contrast.

You can do the same with Photoshop, using a different set of skills to get whatever end result you want.

In one sense trying to compare digital and film on a printed magazine page is a bit futile - the end result of that could be anything. I think we need to try these sort of things for ourselves and see if we can get the results we want. If we can, that's fantastivs, if we can't then we don't use that technique.

When we have competitions at ADAPS, the norm being A3 prints, there is no technical difference in quality that could be put down to the cameras used. The difference is in the skill of the different photographers.

Choice is down to the individual, but the Pentaxes are extremely well made, have superb lenses and handle elegantly. If I didn't use Pentax I would use Nikon. I don't like the Canons at all, and if you read the current AP test of their new 85mm f1.2 lens you will see their lenses are not necessarily all that good either. They are expensive though....

However, the photographers individual opinions and needs will probably be the deciding factor.

PS7 does not have a RAW converter.

CS2 has some nice advantages - I like the Photo Filters, for example. However, to be honest I prefer the PS7 File Browser to Adobe Bridge.

Glad to see you're on your way to earning your first million, ammonyte!

I suppose any thing that can be made in the first place must be repairable in theory, but the cost is always the issue.

In the case of many compact Digital cameras, repair is not really a viable option, especially as prices continue to fall.

Pentax recently built a second lens making plant in Vietnam so I guess the chance that lenses will be assembled there is high. The glass blanks and parts could be made there or anywhere else. The last "Made in Japan" item I had was my MZ-3.

As long as they are made well, I don't think it matters where any more.