If you have a picture preview up in some Windows application (not Photoshop) and right-click the image you can select Properties. There is a "read-only" box that can be un-checked and this should solve the problem for that image.

Of course that doesn't address why it happens sporadically....

I think the Pentax production line has been quite clever, after all the current models are all very similar and in one sense the production run of them has been quite a long one. I am only referring here to the DSLRs.

I have several lenses from the Vietnam factories now, and in terms of performance they have been fine. Where Sue and I have had identical lenses they have also been consistent. I'm sure the Vietnamese are perfectly capable of producing some fine lenses. Your bad experience with the 50-200mm may be simply a bad example of the lens. We have this lens as well and it is excellent and dust-free.

I have been concerned over the "plasticisation" of modern lenses, but I have to say that in terms of function there has been no drop-off in quality, actually more of an improvement in some respects. So I shall have to accept that modern lenses are made in a different way to the metal lenses of the manual focus era.

We shall see where it all leads...

Thank you to Chris of SRS Microsystems for ultra fast delivery of Pentax DLI50 batteries. Much appreciated.

There are some digital printers who claim to be able to equal or even surpass the traditional darkroom print, and in some respects they may be right.

It does depend to some extent to the style and content of the photograph, but it is very easy comparatively to print different parts of a digital file to different exposures and contrasts and to incorporate other photographic elements from other images. Most of which, but not all, can be done in the darkroom, but with sometimes incredible difficulty.

Having said that, the finest black and white prints I have ever seen were 20" x 24" on fibre based paper, and they absolutely sang off the paper. Many digital photographers will have no idea of the sort of quality that is possible.

But for us mere mortals, whose darkroom skills are competent without maybe that extra dash of genius, the digital darkroom offers incredible possibilities that we can translate into better pictures.

The only problem really with this discussion is that we would need to see and feel the real life quality of the things we are discussing, and unfortunately this is not yet possible on the web.

For these commercial applications, this world of ours is all about speed, so the choice is inevitable.

I recently did an article for PU "Images of England" where the source material was colour negative film, and after all the work I've done on digital cameras I just hated the messing about with scanning negatives. I didn't like the results as much either - the pictures don't have that clean-cut look that digital capture has. They looked fine on the printed page, but they were a real nuiscance to prepare.

It was with a sigh of relief that I went back to my totally digital files!

One of the nice things about ePHOTOzine is that it equalises the quality from us all. 500 (or 1000) pixels wide it is, and that's that. So everyone can compete regardless of how many pixels their camera can produce.

Then it's down to the impact of the image, and I like that.

OK, but don't forget there are different types of pro photographers. Newspaper photographers are not going to be using 5x4 cameras, nor are the sports ones.

Landscape photographers might well want 5x4 transparencies, but increasingly I suspect that this will not be viewed as necessary, especially on the grounds of cost. You don't need 5x4 for a half page picture in a magazine, do you?

My definition of a Pro Camera would be one that is used by a Pro. On the grounds that it's the photographer that counts and not (within reason) the camera.

There are some superb old lenses around, and just think of all the K mount or 42mm thread ones that can be used on our Pentax DSLRs!

There are some rich pickings for those who want to experiment....

This technique will work just fine, but for best results:
1. Take the pictures in a darkened room to avoid ambient light reflections.
2. Black out the unused parts of the lightbox to prevent flare.
3. Tape down on the edges unmounted film so it is absolutely flat.
4. Ensure the lens is absolutely parallel to the negative to avoid distortion.
5. Use a small aperture to ensure evenness of illumination and definition.
6. Use a proper high quality macro lens.
7. Copying usually sees an increase of contrast - it might be worth experimenting with using a low contrast setting on your DSLR.
8. Focus very very carefully as DOF will be almost non-existent.

Needless to say it's a time consuming process to do the job properly. I don't have the patience....

We only ever print to A3, for the purposes of competitions and exhibitions.

When I make images that are intended for publication these too are sized for A3 at 300ppi.

Web images are usually sized to EPZ e2 size and are made from the A3 versions.