Sometimes even EPZ doesn't recognise the lens. It won't for K-3 images yet, so presumably software has to catch up on recognising things.

I have the same problem with EXIF on PU. Sometimes the pull down menu gives us the right choice to add in, sometimes not. Sometimes I add it to the description, which is always an option even if a bit tedious.

I'm going to disagree with that as well. You seem fixated on noise levels, but there's more to it than that. The proof of the pudding though is having the K-3 in your hands, with an open mind.

The explanation for the weekly competition is on the front page of the competitions. It explains the process and asks that all entries be taken on Pentax cameras, in bold letters.

I can't see that someone can really just randomly arrive at PU and not understand it's a Pentax site. I can't see how they can be puzzled if a Canon or Nikon picture is taken off, they are told twice in the competition area, again in the forum area and then they get an explanatory PM as well.

How much hand holding is reasonable? If it was a magazine, which it is in a way but online, then there would be none of the extra assistance. Entries that didn't follow the rules would just fail at the first hurdle.

I think the photographer who enters also has some responsibility to find out what they need to do, or ask if in doubt.

If you click on the competition Barrie you see this:

IMHO that seems pretty clear. Brief, but clear.

It's in big friendly letters at the top of the button and again in the actual description of the competition.

The number of removed entries has fallen dramatically, but the first rule of a competition is of course to read the rules. If we don't then we probably won't do well.

I have just removed an image that was the right month, but sadly the wrong year.

To be fair Jules, whilst some have increased in price, some have reduced.

It's never a stable situation and prices move up and down all the time.

I should add that nobody is suggesting that every picture with no EXIF means someone is cheating. There are many reasons why the EXIF can be wrong.

The EXIF on copied or scanned images could be anything, for example.

Experience has to be gained, we all started somewhere.

But that aside, some photographers used to use very slow ASA 50 (not ISO yet!) film, lovely contrast and fine grain. I used to use fast Tri-X (ASA 400)and my shots were often sharper. Why?

Firstly because I used an acutance developer to give the grain structure a very sharp appearance. Secondly I used hard paper to give increased contrast, typically Kodak Grade 3. Thirdly I has a three stop advantage in shutter speed so I didn't get camera shake.

The slow film only gave superior results if the technique was spot on, first and foremost using a tripod to eliminate shake. Slow film plus sloppy technique would not give good results.

In terms of the K-3 this translates in different ways, but I'm talking about a general principle. Whatever the image being shot, the advantages will only be realised with good photographic technique.

The first thing that struck me when I saw a kingfisher for the first time was how tiny they were. No long lens could be long enough to capture them properly, so the close up from a hide seems the only way to go.